CONCERNING 


Human  Vivisection 


A    CONTROVERSY 


/.  Letter  of  Hon.  James  M.  Brown,  President  of  The 
American  Humane  Association,  to  William  W.  Keen, 
M.D. 

II.  Letter  of  William  W.  Keen,  M.D.,  LL.D.,  Late  Presi- 
dent American  Medical  Association,  to  President  fames 
M.  Brown. 

Ill      The  Reality   of  Human    Vivisection  :   A    Review   of  Dr. 
Keen '  s  Pamphlet. 


PUBLISHED   BY 

THE   AMERICAN    HUMANE   ASSOCIATION 

1901 


CONCERNING 


Human  Vivisection 


A    CONTROVERSY 


/.  Letter  of  Hon.  James  M.  Brown,  President  of  The 
American  Humane  Association,  to  William  W.  Keen, 
M.D. 

II.  Letter  of  William  W.  Keen,  M.D.,  LL.D.,  Late  Presi- 
dent American  Medical  Association,  to  President  James 
M.  Brown. 

III.      The  Reality   of  Human    Vivisection  :   A    Review   of  Dr. 
Keen' s  Pamphlet. 


PUBLISHED   BY 

THE   AMERICAN    HUMANE   ASSOCIATION 

igoi 


\|>>-3« 


INTRODUCTION. 


What  are  the  facts  concerning  the  practice  of  Human 
Vivisection,  or  the  use  of  human  beings — chiefly  women  and 
children — as  "material"  for  painful  or  dangerous  investi- 
gations that  have  no  relation  to  their  personal  benefit?  The 
following  pages  pertain  to  an  important  controversy  on  this 
question. 

In  a  pamphlet  entitled  Human  Vivisection,  issued  two  years 
since,  the  American  Humane  Association, — acting  in 
behalf  of  those  who  cannot  protect  themselves, — invited  public 
attention  to  this  growing  abuse.  The  evidence  thus  pre- 
sented has  been  recently  attacked  by.  a  Philadelphia  surgeon, 
Prof.  William  W.  Keen,  M.D.,  who  not  only  cast  doubt  upon 
its  reliability,  but  also  ventured,  to  a  certain  extent,  to  sug- 
gest excuses  for  those  charged  with  making  such  experi- 
ments. A  reply  to  Dr.  Keen's  widely-circulated  pamphlet  at 
<  nice  appeared.  Issued  without  the  sanction  of  any  Humane 
Society, — unsupported  even  by  the  name  of  its  author, — this 
review  of  Dr.  Keen's  attack  illustrated  his  methods  of  argu- 
ment, made  apparent  a  significant  tendency  to  apologize  for 
experiments  upon  man,  and  proved  beyond  question  the 
validity  of  the  evidence  he  had  impugned. 

It  has  seemed  to  many  that  the  importance  of  this  reply  to 
Dr.  Keen  calls  for  its  immediate  reprint  and  widest  possible 
circulation.  It  has,  therefore,  been  carefully  examined  and 
revised  under  the  direction  of  a  special  committee,  and  is 
now  issued  under  the  authority  of  the  American  Humane 
Association. 

In  one  respect  Dr.  Keen's  attack  has  undoubtedly  advanced 
the  cause  of  humanity,  the  interests  of  truth,  and  the  advent 
of  reform.  By  his  scepticism  concerning  the  evidences  of 
human  vivisection  previously  published,  by  his  imputation 


4  Introduction. 

that  proofs  of  the  practice  are  vague  and  insufficient,  and  by 
suggestion  of  excuses  for  offenders,  Dr.  Keen  has  made  it 
impossible  for  us  to  permit  the  matter  to  rest  in  the  slightest 
degree  undetermined  or  doubtful  in  the  public  mind.  At 
any  cost  of  publicity  we  believe  the  further  unveiling  of  these 
atrocious  deeds  should  now  proceed.  There  must  be  a  more 
complete  exposure,  fortified  by  evidence  that  even  the  most 
brilliant  audacity  will  hesitate  to  impeach.  If  this  exposure 
shall  involve  names  which  have  thus  far  escaped  publicity, 
they  have  only  to  thank  Dr.  Keen  for  an  attack  upon  evi- 
dence, which  makes  it  necessary  to  submit  further  proof. 

By  some  of  his  friends  and  admirers,  Dr.  Keen's  attack 
has  been  regarded  as  a  crushing  blow,  to  which  answer  was 
quite  impossible.  The  estimate  placed  upon  it  by  The 
American  Humane  Association  cannot  be  more  clearly 
evinced  than  by  the  fact  that  as  an  act  of  justice  it  prints 
herewith,  his  pamphlet  in  full.  We  believe  that  the  Review 
which  immediately  follows  will  demonstrate  the  completeness 
of  his  failure  in  attack,  and  the  impotence  of  his  defense. 
For  Human  Vivisection  is  not  a  myth  but  an  awful  reality, — 
a  crime  against  Civilization,  which  demands  the  condemna- 
tion of  every  friend  of  Humanity  and  the  reprobation  of 
every  honest  man. 

By  order  of  the  Sub-Executive  Committee 
of  the  American  Humane  Association. 

JOHN  G.  SHORTALL, 

Chairman. 
July  i,  1901. 


I. 
President  James  M.  Brown  to  Dr.  W.  W.  Keen. 


THE  AMERICAN   HUMANE   ASSOCIATION: 

Societies  of  the  United  States   Organized  for  the  Prevention  of 
Cruelty  to  Animals  and  Children. 

Toledo,  Ohio,  Oct.  4,  1900. 
Prof.  William  W.  Keen,  M.D.,  late  President  of  the  American  Medical 
Association,  Jefferson  Medical  College,  Philadelphia. 
Dear  Sir: — My  attention  has  just  been  called  to  a  passage  in  the  pub- 
lished Report  of  the  Hearing  before  the  Senate  committee,  held  at 
Washington  last  February,  on  the  bill  for  regulation  of  vivisection.  In 
this  volume  the  following  conversation  between  Senator  Gallinger  and 
yourself  is  recorded : 

Senator  Gallinger — What  knowledge  have  you  of  the  advances  made  by  vivi- 
sectionists  that  have  led  them  to  progress  from  the  brute  creation  to  the  human  crea- 
tion in  making  these  so-called  vivisection  experiments  ? 

Dr.  Keen — I  presume  you  refer  to  a  pamphlet  issued  by  the  American  Humane 
Society.  I  have  only  to  say  in  reference  to  it  that  there  were  a  number  of  experiments 
which  I  would  utterly  condemn.  Of  the  experiments  narrated  in  that  pamphlet,  I 
have  looked  up  every  one  that  I  could.  Only  two  are  alleged  to  have  been  done  in 
America.  Many  of  them  are  so  vague  and  indefinite  that  I  could  not  look  them  up, 
but  as  to  those  that  I  could,  some  are  garbled  and  inaccurate;  not  all  of  them,  observe, 

A  statement  of  this  character,  based  upon  such  authority,  it  is  impos- 
sible to  ignore.  Proceeding  from  one  less  eminent  than  yourself  in  that 
profession  which  you  represent  and  adorn,  it  might  pass  without  notice, 
but  coming  from  you,  sir,  such  a  charge  must  be  investigated  and  probed 
to  the  fullest  extent.  Its  importance  is  evident,  and  in  testing  its  accu- 
racy you  will  give  me,  I  trust,  every  assistance  within  your  power. 

First:  Regarding  the  cases  of  experimentation  upon  human  beings 
recorded  in  our  pamphlet,  "Human  Vivisection,"  you  informed  the 
Senate  committee  that  "Many  of  them  are  so  vague  and  indefinite  that 
I  could  not  look  them  up."  We  challenge  the  accuracy  of  that  state- 
ment, and  ask  for  proof.  Of  the  various  series  of  experiments  upon 
human  beings,  made  for  the  most  part  upon  women  and  children  in 
hospitals  and  infirmaries,  the  authorities  given  in  this  pamphlet  are  as 
follows : 


6  The  Human   Vivisection  Controversy. 

1.  Bulletin  of  the  Johns  Hopkins  Hospital  for  July,  1897. 

2.  Boston  Medical  and  Surgical  Journal  for  Aug.  6  and  13,  1896;    The 

Philadelphia  Polyclinic  for  Sept.  5,  1896. 

3.  New  York  Medical  Record  for  Sept.  10,  1892. 

4.  The  British  Medical  Journal  for  July  3,   1897;    the  7Ww  England 

Medical  Monthly  for  March,  1898. 

5.  The  Medical  Press  for  December  5,  1888;    the  British  Medical  Jour- 

nal for  Aug.  29,  1891 ;    the  London  Times  for  June  27,  1891,  (and 
other  journals). 

6.  The  Medical  Brief  for  June,  1899. 

7.  Ringer's  Therapeutics,  pp.  585,  588,  590,  591,  498,  503 ;    the  London 

Lancet  for  Nov.  3,  1893. 

8.  The  Newcastle  Daily  Chronicle  for  Sept.  21,  1888. 

9.  The  Medical  Press  and  Circular  for  March  29,  1899;    The  London 

Lancet  for  May  6,  1899,  p.  1261. 

10.  The  Allg.  Wiener  med.  Zeitung,  Nos.  50  and  51. 

11.  Deutsche  med.  Wochcnschrift,  Nos.  46  and  48  of  year  1894. 

12.  Deutsche  med.  Wochenschrift,  of  Feb.  19,  1891. 

13.  Lecture  before  Medical  Society  of  Stockholm,  Sweden,  May  12,  1891. 

14.  The  British  Medical  Journal  for  Oct.  15,  1881 ;    Medical  Reprints  for 

May  16,  1893;    the  Nineteenth  Century  for  Dec,  1895. 

For  one  series  of  experiments  in  the  above  list,  those  made  by  Dr. 
Janson  upon  children  of  the  "Foundlings'  Home" — with  the  "kind  per- 
mission" of  the  head  physician,  Professor  Medin — because,  as  he  said, 
"calves  were  so  expensive,"  it  appears  that  the  only  authority  given 
was  a  reference  to  his  lecture  delivered  before  a  Swedish  medical 
society  upon  a  certain  date.  Although,  so  far  as  known,  the  facts  there 
stated. have  never  been  denied,  yet  the  reference  may,  perhaps,  be  called 
indefinite.  But  one  case  is  not  "many."  To  what  other  of  the  refer- 
ences above  given  did  you  refer  when  you  informed  the  Senate  com- 
mittee that  "many  of  them  were  so  vague  and  indefinite  that  I  could 
not  look  them  up?"  Had  you  stated  that  your  library — ample  as  it  is — 
did  not  contain,  and  could  not  be  expected  to  contain,  all  of  the  foreign 
authorities  to  which  reference  was  made,  there  would  have  been  nothing 
to  criticize.  I  must  assume,  sir,  that  you  have  not  put  forth  an  aspersion 
of  another's  reliability  merely  to  save  acknowledgment  of  the  inadequacy 
of  your  sources  of  reference  ;  that  the  proofs  of  your  statement,  cov- 
ering "many"  cases,  are  available,  and,  in  the  interest  of  accuracy,  I 
ask  you  to  produce  them. 

Second:  There  is  yet  another  point  to  which  I  ask  your  attention. 
You  made  the  statement  before  the  Senate  committee  that  in  regard  to 
our  published  account  of  cases  of  human  vivisection,  "many  of  them  are 
so  vague  and  indefinite  that  I  could  not  look  them  up;  but  as  to  those 
that  I  could,  some  are  garbled  and  inaccurate ;   not  all  of  them,  observe." 

This,  sir,  is  a  most  serious  charge.  You  distinctly  declared  that  of 
the  cases  personally  investigated  by  yourself,  as  quoted  in  the  pamphlet 
on   "Human  Vivisection,"   some  are   "garbled  and  inaccurate."     We  deny 


Letter  of  President  Brown.  7 

the  charge,  and  again  challenge  production  of  evidence  upon  which  it 
is  made. 

A  "garbled"  quotation  is  one  which,  by  reason  of  omission  and  per- 
versions, is  essentially  unfair.  Sometimes  it  is  a  statement  from  which 
parts  are  omitted  or  transposed  for  the  purpose  of  conveying  a  false 
impression.  To  omit  quotation  of  parts  not  directly  bearing  upon  the 
question  for  the  sake  of  brevity — this  is  not  "garbling,"  for  all  quotation 
would  then  be  impossible.  We  assert  that  in  quoting  accounts  of  the 
cases  of  human  vivisection  no  omissions  of  essential  facts  have  been 
made  sufficient  to  impair  the  accuracy  or  fairness  of  the  quotation.  Let 
us  put  the  matter  to  the  test.  Point  out,  if  you  can,  the  "some  cases" 
which  you  found  "garbled  and  inaccurate,"  and  in  proof  of  the  charge 
quote  the  omitted  sentences  or  words  which,  had  they  been  inserted, 
would  cause  you  and  the  general  public  to  justify  and  approve  the 
experiments  on  human  beings  which  we  have  so  severely  condemned. 

Third:  You  stated,  sir,  before  the  Senate  committee  that  only  two 
experiments  upon  human  beings  "are  alleged  to  have  been  done  in 
America."  I  question,  sir,  whether  that  remark  is  quite  in  accord  with 
the  highest  ideals  of  truth;  it  is  the  language  of  doubt;  it  seems  to 
signify  and  imply  that  even  you  are  aware  of  no  other  experiments  upon 
human  beings  than  "two  cases"  which  are  thus  "alleged."  I  am  very 
confident,  sir,  that  you  will  not  venture  formally  to  assert — what  you 
have  seemed  to  imply — that  you  know  of  but  two  experiments  upon 
human  beings  made  in  this  country  and  recorded  in  the  medical  litera- 
ture of  the  United  States.  There  is  indeed  need  of  further  enlighten- 
ment, if  the  medical  profession  of  this  country,  so  worthily  represented  by 
yourself,  is  ignorant  of  what  has  been  done  by  men  without  pity  and 
without  conscience. 

Trusting  to  have  response  from  you  at  an  early  date,  I  am, 

Yours  most  truly, 

James  M.  Brown, 

President. 


II. 
Dr.  W.  W.  Keen  to  President  James  M.  Brown. 


1729  Chestnut  Street, 
Philadelphia,  Pa.,  Jan.  21,  1901. 

James    M.    Browx,    Esq.,    President    American    Humane    Association, 
Toledo,  Ohio. 

Dear  Sir: — Your  letter  of  October  4  reached  me  promptly,  but  as  I  then 
notified  you  would  be  the  case,  very  pressing  engagements,  absence,  etc., 
prevented  an  earlier  reply.  Now  that  I  have  a  little  leisure,  I  can  answer 
your  letter  and  furnish  you  in  detail  the  proofs  for  which  you  ask. 

There  are  two  pamphlets,  both  entitled  "Pluman  Vivisection."  First, 
one  of  thirty  pages,  "printed  for  the  American  Humane  Association, 
1899 ;"  the  other  of  seven  pages,  "published  by  the  Humane  Society, 
Washington,  D.  C,"  without  date,  but  from  its  contents  published  a 
little  later,  as  it  is  chiefly  a  synopsis  of  the  same  instances  reported  more 
fully  in  the  larger  pamphlet.  Hereafter  when  I  speak  of  "the  pamphlet" 
I  mean  the  larger  one,  unless  I  specifically  mention  the  smaller  one. 

This  larger  pamphlet  consists  of  two  parts :  first,  (pp.  3-12)  a 
reprint  of  a  portion  of  "Senate  Document  No.  78"  and  the  rest  of  it 
of  various  quotations,  translations  and  comments.  No  name  is  attached 
to  either  part  to  indicate  who  is  responsible  for  the  accuracy  of  the 
references,  the  translations  or  the  quotations.  As  the  whole  is  preceded 
by  an  open  letter  signed  by  the  president  and  secretary  of  the  American 
Humane  Association,  and  as  you  refer  to  the  pamphlet  as  "ours,"  I 
presume  the  association  holds  itself  responsible  for  such  accuracy,  espe- 
cially as  you,  as  its  new  president,  challenge  me  for  proof. 

The  pamphlet  purports  to  furnish  a  reprint  of  a  portion  of  "Senate 
Document  No.  78,"  and  refers  to  this  document  in  a  way  that  would  lead 
uninformed  readers  to  suppose  that  this  is  a  document  expressing  the 
sentiments  of  the  United  States  Senate.  It  is,  therefore,  important  to 
call  your  attention  to  the  fact  that  Senate  Document  No.  78  is  simply  a 
collection  of  statements  and  papers  by  various  persons,  printed  by  order 
of  the  Senate,  but  in  no  sense  expressing  the  opinions  or  convictions  of 
that  body.  The  last  paper  in  this  document  is  one  on  "Human  Vivisec- 
tion,"   by    "A.  Tracy." 

In  two  respects  "A.  Tracy"  has  a  right  to  complain  that  the  reprint 
is  inaccurate :  First,  it  omits  to  print  the  name  of  the  author  "A.  Tracy." 
Surely  he — or  she  (?) — should  receive  whatever  credit  there  is  attaching 
to  his  work.  Secondly,  on  page  30,  line  8,  of  Senate  Document  No. 
78,  I  read  "A.  Tracy's  comment.  ["This  patient,  therefore,  was  scien- 
tificially  murdered."]'  This  statement  the  reprint  very  wisely  omits — but 
there  are  no  indications  of  the  omission.     Of  this,  more  hereafter. 

Your  letter  challenges  the  accuracy  of  my  statements  in  three  particu- 
lars :  I.  I  stated  that  many  of  the  references  in  the  pamphlet  are  "vague 
and  indefinite."  2.  I  said  that  some  of  the  accounts  of  the  experiments 
are  "garbled  and  inaccurate.  3.  I  stated  that  of  the  experiments  nar- 
rated in  the  pamphlet  only  two  were  alleged  to  have  been  performed 
in  America. 


Letter  of  Dr.  W.  W.  Keen.  9 

You  will  pardon  me  if  I  indignantly  resent  your  imputation  of  untruth- 
fulness in  regard  to  this  last  statement.  You  entirely  misinterpret  my 
statement,  which  had  no  reference  to  my  knowledge  or  ignorance  of  any 
other  American  experiments.  I  said  that  the  pamphlet  only  contained 
two  instances  of  such  experiments  which  were  alleged  to  have  been  done 
in  America.  These  are  recorded  on  pages  4  and  5  of  the  pamphlet.  All 
the  rest  were  done  in  Europe,  South  America,  and  Hawaii,  years  before 
it  came  into  our  possession.  If  you  still  question  the  accuracy  of  my 
statement  and  believe  that  there  is  a  third  instance  of  experiments  done 
in  America  and  described  in  the  pamphlet,  point  it  out  by  page  and 
paragraph. 

Turning  to  the  other  two  really  important  matters  referred  to  in  your 
letter,  let  me  again  state  clearly  the  question  at  issue.  It  is  not  whether 
the  experiments  meet  with  my  approval,  but  solely  whether  the  reports 
of  them  in  the  pamphlet  issued  by  the  American  Humane  Association 
are  reliable  and  accurate  both  as  to  their  sources  and  substance. 

I.      MANY   OF   THE   REFERENCES    ARE  VAGUE   AND   INDEFINITE. 

The  references  are  so  vague  and  indefinite  in  many  cases  that  the 
statements  and  quotations  made  can  not  be  verified  by  consulting  the 
originals.  The  preface  of  your  president  and  secretary  states  that  "in 
each  case  the  authority  is  given,"  and  what  sort  of  "authority"  do  you 
depend  upon?  Newspaper  medicine  and  surgery  are  notoriously  inac- 
curate. I  have  personally  had  so  much  experience  and  observation  of 
this  that  I  am  always  certain  that  at  least  one-half  or  more  of  the  state- 
ments in  newspapers  in  reference  to  medical  matters  are  inaccurate,  not 
purposely,  but  only  because  the  writers  are  not  medical  men.  Yet  you 
depend  for  the  accuracy  of  your  statements  upon  newspapers  as  follows 
(I  follow  the  inaccurate  spelling  of  foreign  names  in  your  pamphlet)  : 

1.  The  Vienna  correspondent  of  the  London  Morning  Leader,  Jan.  26,  1899  (p.  3), 
of  whom  more  hereafter. 

2.  The  Deutsche  Volksblatt ,  Jan.  25,  1899,  (p.  3.) 

3.  The  Washington  correspondent  of  the  Boston  Transcript,  Sept.  24,  1897  (p.  9), 
of  whom  more  hereafter. 

4.  The  N.  Y.  Independent,  Dec.  12,  1895  (p.  n). 

5.  The  London  Times,  June  27,  1891  (p.  16). 

6.  The  Tagliche  Rundschau  of  Berlin  (p.  17)  ;  no  year,  month  or  day  being  given. 

7.  The  Vossische  Zeitung  of  Berlin,  no  year,  month  or  day  being  given  (p.  18). 

8.  The  Vorwartz,  no  year,  month  or  day  being  given  (p.  18). 

9.  The  Danziger  Zeitung,  July  23,  1891  (p.  18). 

10.  The  Schlesische  Volkszeitung,  July  24,  1891  (p.  18). 

11.  The  Hamburger  Nachrichten,  July  1S91,  no  day  stated  (p.  19). 

12.  A  correspondent  of  the  Newcastle  (England  ?)  daily  Chronicle,  Sept.  21,  18S8- 
(p.  22). 

13.  Dr.  R.  E.  Dudgeon,  in  the  Abolitio7iist ,  April  15,  1899  (p.  24). 

14.  A  letter  by  Dr.  Edward  Berdoe  to  the  London  Chronicle,  without  year,  month, 
or  day  (p.  29). 

Few  of  these  fourteen  newspaper  references  can  be  consulted  in  this 
country;  five  of  them  (Nos.  6,  7,  8,  11,  and  14)  are  impossible  of  con- 
sultation for  want  of  any  date  whatever. 

In  no  case  would  I  be  willing  to  admit  a  newspaper  paragraph,  a  non- 
professional and  usually  unsigned  statement — even  if  correctly  quoted — 
as  a  sufficient  authority  for  a  grave  charge  against  an  individual  or  the 
profession. 


10  The  Hitman   Vivisection   Controversy. 

Look  for  a  moment  what  stuff  Senator  Gallinger  stated  at  the  "Hear- 
ing" he  had  himself  caused  to  be  printed.  It  is  published  on  page  31 
of  the  "Hearing"  and  on  page  3  of  the  pamphlet.  It  consists  of  cable 
dispatches  printed  in  some  newspaper — Senator  Gallinger  did  not  even 
remember  its  name.  The  author  of  the  dispatch  from  London  is  utterly 
unknown.  The  dispatch  states  that  "the  Vienna  correspondent  of  the 
[London]  Morning  Leader  says"  so  and  so.  Who  and  how  reliable  is 
the  Vienna  correspondent?  He  says  that  "the  physicians  in  the  free 
hospitals  of  Vienna"  do  so  and  so.  Who  are  the  physicians?  In  what 
hospitals  were  these  deeds  of  darkness  done? 

And  upon  such  evidence  it  is  seriously  proposed  to  indict  the  medical 
profession!  Whether  these  dispatches  are  "garbled  and  inaccurate"  in 
their  alleged  facts  who  can  find  out? 

If  a  lawyer  tried  to  convict  a  man  of  petty  larceny  on  such  testimony, 
he  would  be  laughed  out  of  court.  And  yet  a  senator  of  the  United 
States  and  the  American  Humane  Association  actually  adduce  such 
statements  as  evidences  of  the  gravest  charges  and  spread  them  broad- 
cast! 

I  now  add  six  other  "vague  and  indefinite"  references  not  to  news- 
papers. 

15.  On  page  13  there  is  a  quotation  from  Tertullian.  The  reference 
in  the  foot-note  is  "Tertullian,  De  Anima,  Vol.  ii,  pp.  430,  433,  Tran., 
by  Holmes."  I  have  compared  the  quotation  with  Clark's  Edinburgh 
edition  of  the  Translation  of  Tertullian  by  Holmes,  the  date  of  the 
edition  being  1870.  No  such  quotation  exists  on  pages  430-433.  Possibly 
it  may  be  that  the  quotation  is  from  another  edition.  No  edition  is 
named  in  the  pamphlet ;  another  instance  of  a  "vague  and  indefinite" 
reference. 

16.  On  page  17  a  formal  accusation  is  quoted  as  made  by  a  Dr. 
Eugen  Leidig  against  certain  surgeons.  No  reference  whatever  to  any 
book  or  journal  is  given  by  which  the  accuracy  of  the  quotation  can  be 
tested.     Is  not  this  again    "vague  and  indefinite?" 

17.  On  page  24  is  a  reference  to  a  paper  by  "Professor  E.  Finger,  of 
Vienna  (Allg.  Weiner  Med.  Zcitnng,  Nos.  50  and  51)."  No  year  is 
given,  a  somewhat  essential  part  of  the  reference,  as  there  are  over 
forty  volumes  of  this  journal,  each  with  the  weekly  numbers  50  and  51. 
No  such  paper  by  Finger  is  published  in  that  journal,  at  least  from 
1890  to  the  present  time.  The  reference  is  quoted  from  a  paper  by  Dr. 
R.  E.  Dudgeon  in  the  Abolitionist — an  English  journal — of  April  15, 
1899.  I  have  been  unable  to  consult  this  journal.  If  Dudgeon  gave  the 
year,  then  the  Humane  Association  pamphlet  has  misquoted  him.  If 
he  did  not,  then  both  the  Association's  pamphlet  and  he  have  been 
"vague  and  indefinite." 

18.  On  page  25  again  is  a  reference  to  a  statement  in  a  "lecture  before 
the  Medical  Society  of  Stockholm,"  by  Dr.  Jansen,  of  the  Charity  Hospi- 
tal, reporting  certain  experiments.  No  reference  whatever  is  given  even 
to  a  newspaper,  much  less  to  any  medical  journal.  As  the  statement 
is  in  quotation  marks  it  purports  to  be  the  exact  words  used  and  ought 
to  have  had  some  source  to  which  a  reference  was  possible,  especially 
as  the  preface  of  the  pamphlet  says :  "In  each  case  the  authority  is 
given."  I  am  glad  to  see  that  in  your  letter  you  recognize  this  as  one 
in  which  the  reference  is  really  inadequate.  I  notice,  however,  that 
even  in  your  letter  you  do  not  supply  this  missing  reference.  You  say 
the  facts  asserted  in  the  Jansen  paragraph  have  never  been  denied.  Of 
course  not.  The  first  requisite  is  to  know  whether  they  are  correctly 
quoted. 

Turning  now  from  the  larger  pamphlet  to  the  smaller  one,  which 
was  spread  broadcast  by  house  to  house  distribution  in  Washington  at 
the  time  when  the  hearing  on  this  matter  took  place  last  winter,  I  find 
repeated  in  this  a  number  of  the  same  vague  and  indefinite  references 


Letter  of  Dr.  W.  W.  Keen.  1 1 

and  garbled  and  inaccurate  quotations  already  or  to   be   described,  to 
which  are  to  be  added  the  following : 

19.  On  page  3,  an  extract  from  a  report  referring  to  experiments  upon 
insane  patients  is  printed  in  quotation  marks.  The  only  reference  is 
to  a  "published  report"  in  1890  of  the  "Medical  Staff  of  the  Public 
Insane  Asylum  in  Voralberg,  Austria."  The  librarian  of  the  Surgeon 
General's  office  informs  me  that  there  are  two  small  insane  asylums  in 
the  Voralberg,  namely,  at  Hall  and  Valduna.  Some  reports  of  the 
former  are  in  the  library  and  in  them  no  account  of  the  experiments 
referred  to  can  be  found.  No  reply  has  been  received  to  a  letter 
addressed  to  this  asylum  as  named  in  the  pamphlet  and  written  over  a 
year  ago.* 

20.  On  the  same  page  is  an  account  of  some  experiments  on  bacteria 
from  boils,  and  the  reference  is  to  the  "Deutsches  Volksblatt ;"  no  day, 
no  month,  no  number,  no  page,  nor  even  the  year  is  given.  If  this  is 
not    "vague  and  indefinite,"    what  is? 

21.  On  page  24  there  is  an  account  of  Kroenig's  experiments,  to  which 
I  shall  recur  later.  No  reference  whatever  is  given  to  the  source  from 
which  the  account  is  taken. 

2.    SOME  OF  THE  STATEMENTS   ARE  GARBLED   AND  INACCURATE. 

To  be  vague  and  indefinite  in  charges  affecting  the  morals  and  the 
reputation  not  only  of  individuals,  but,  in  fact,  of  a  whole  profession 
is  bad  enough,  but  to  make  statements  that  are  "garbled  and  inaccurate" 
is,  as  your  letter  recognizes,  a  much  more  serious  matter.  Let  me  con- 
sider the  instances  in  detail. 

1.  "Vivisection  Experiments  Upon  the  Insane,"  pages  4  and  5:  In 
the  following  quotation,  the  words  of  the  original,  which  I  enclose  in 
brackets,  are  omitted.  "To  these  patients  the  thyroid  tablets  [each  pill 
representing  five  grains  of  the  fresh  sheep's  gland]  were  administered," 
etc.  This  omission  is  of  moment,  because  any  one  familiar  with  the 
administration  of  thyroid  extract  knows  that  the  doses  used  by  Dr. 
Berkley  are  frequently  given  to  human  patients,  including  the  insane, 
without  producing  symptoms  dangerous  to  life,  but  on  the  contrary  with 
benefit.  I  have  myself  given  such  tablets  to  patients  with  goiter  for 
weeks  together  in  larger  doses  than  Dr.  Berkley  used. 

In  the  following  paragraph  the  quotation  is  garbled  by  omitting  the 
words  which  I  enclose  in  brackets :  "Two  patients  became  frenzied 
and  of  these  one  died  before  the  excitement  had  subsided  [the  imme- 
diate cause  of  the  exitus  being  an  acute  disseminated  tuberculosis]." 
And  again  in  the  next  paragraph  giving  a  report  of  the  same  case,  the 
pamphlet  quotes  :  "The  thyroid  extract  was  now  discontinued,  but  the 
excitement  kept  up.  .  .  .  for  seven  weeks,  at  the  end  of  which  time 
she  died."  One  would  think  this  was  the  end  of  the  sentence  and  that 
she  died  from  the  effects  of  the  thyroid  tablets.  Not  at  all.  The 
original  continues  as  follows :  She  died  "with  the  clinical  evidences  of 
acute  military  tuberculosis" — galloping  consumption.  Does  this  not  come 
within  the  definition  of  garbling  given  in  your  letter?  "A  'garbled' 
quotation  is  one  which,  by  reason  of  omission  and  perversions,  is  essen- 
tially unfair."  To  say  that  this  patient,  who  actually  died  of  galloping 
consumption,  died  from  the  effects  of  the  thyroid  extract,  which  had 
not  been  given  for  seven  weeks  before  death,  is  as  absurd  as  it  would 
be  to  say  she  had  died  from  the  effects  of  moderate  doses  of  laudanum 
given  seven  weeks  before.  Yet  "A.  Tracy's"  comment  on  this  case 
is:  "[This  patient  was,  therefore,  scientifically  murdered]."  Your  Asso- 
ciation mutilates  its  reprints  by  wisely  omitting  this  piece  of  absurdity, 
though  the  omission  is  not  indicated.     Moreover,  the  pamphlet  states: 

*  This  letter  was  written  by  myself  and  not  by  the  librarian. 


12  The  Human  Vivisection  Controversy. 

"there  is  no  intimation  that  the  administration  of  the  poisonous  substance 
was  given  for  any  beneficial  purpose  to  the  patients,  for  he  took  care  to 
select  patients  that  were  probably  incurable."  On  the  contrary,  Berkley's 
original  paper  expressly  states  that  instead  of  being  incurable,  one 
(Case  i)  was  cured  and  another  (No.  3)  was  improved.  Besides  this, 
though  the  pamphlet  is  dated  1899,  it  omits  all  reference  to  Dr.  Berk- 
ley's letter  to  the  British  Medical  Journal  for  October  30,  1897,  in  reply 
to  your  friend  Dr.  Berdoe,  which  shows  that,  as  a  result  of  the  admin- 
istration of  the  thyroid  tablets  to  these  eight  patients — a  well  recognized 
remedy  for  insanity,*  not  one  died  from  the  effects  of  the  drug,  but 
that,  on  the  contrary,  two  of  those  alleged  "incurables"  were  cured — 
25  per  cent. 

In  his  admirable  letter  to  Life — Dec.  6,  1900 — Dr.  Berkley  says :  "The 
purpose  for  which  the  article  was  written  was  to  show  to  the  medical 
profession  that  a  certain  medicament  in  common  use  was  not  free  from 
objection,  and  should  not  be  given  in  unsuitable  cases.  In  proper  ones 
the  results  are  among  the  most  resplendent  attained  by  modern  medi- 
cine, converting  the  drooling  dwarf  into  an  intelligent,  well-grown  man 
or  woman ;  or  in  other  instances,  as  in  myxedematous  insanity,  afford- 
ing the  otherwise  hopelessly  insane  with  almost  a  specific  to  recover  their 
reason."     [See  the  addendum  at  the  end  of  this  letter.] 

2.  The  Cases  of  Lumbar  Puncture,  by  Dr.  Wentworth,  of  Boston,  (p. 
5)  :  "Lumbar  puncture,"  I  may  remind  you,  is  the  simple  insertion  of 
a  hypodermic  needle  between  the  vertebrae  into  the  sheath  of  the  spinal 
cord,  but  below  the  cord  itself,  to  obtain  a  few  drops  of  the  cerebro- 
spinal fluid  for  diagnosis. 

The  pamphlet  gives  what  is  called  a  "brief  abstract"  of  five  of  the 
experiments  related.  The  abstracts  are  indeed  brief,  so  brief  as  to  give 
a  wholly  erroneous  impression  as  to  the  causes  of  the  patient's  death. 
The  omissions  are  glaring  instances  of  what  the  logicians  call  a  sup- 
prcssio  veri  equivalent  to  a  snggestio  falsi.  Let  me  point  this  out  in 
detail. 

Case  2.  It  is  correctly  quoted  that  the  last  puncture  (where  there 
were  several  punctures  I  only  give  the  last  date)  was  made  "Feb.  16, 
on  the  day  of  patient's  death."  The  pamphlet  fails  to  add,  however,  the 
important  fact  stated  by  Dr.  Wentworth  that  the  post-mortem  showed  an 
empyema  [abscess  in  the  chest]  which  had  burst  into  the  lung,  pneu- 
monia, and  inflammation  of  the  brain  with  pus  as  the  cause  of  death. 

Case  3.  The  pamphlet  correctly  says  "puncture  Jan.  17,  1896;  patient 
died  Jan.  22."  What  Dr.  Wentworth  adds  is  omitted,  namely:  "No 
symptoms  attended  or  followed  the  operation."  Moreover,  the  post- 
mortem showed  that  the  patient  died  from  the  widespread  changes  com- 
mon to  infantile  wasting. 

Case  5.  The  pamphlet  says:  "Puncture  Feb.  3.  1896;  patient  died 
Feb.  4."  It  omits  to  state  what  immediately  afterward  follows,  that 
the  post-mortem  showed  "primary  tuberculosis  of  the  intestine.  Double 
pneumonia,"    as  the  causes  of  death. 

Case  6.  The  pamphlet  quotes  "Puncture  Feb.  1 ;  patient  died  in 
convulsions  three  weeks  later."  It  neglects  to  state,  what  Dr.  Went- 
worth particularly  mentions,  "no  reaction  on  the  part  of  the  patient 
attended  the  operation,"  and  it  also  fails  to  state  that  the  child  was 
seen  only  once  and  that  the  diagnosis  then  made  was  tubercular  menin- 

*  I  quote  the  following  from  the  eighth  edition  of  Hare's  Therapeutics,  as  to  the  use 
of  thyroid  extract :  "  In  the  dose  of  from  5  to  20  grains  (0.35-1.3)  three  times  a  day 
[i.  e.  15  to  60  grains  a  day]  according  to  the  degree  to  which  it  produces  its  effects,  it 
has  proved  of  value  in  acute  mania  and  melancholia,  puerperal  and  climacteric  insani- 
ties and  in  stuporous  states  with  primary  dementia."  Berkley's  maximum  dose  was 
15  grains  a  day. 


Letter  of  Dr.  W.  W.  Keen.  1 3 

gitis,  which  was  clearly  the  cause  of  the  child's  death,  three  weeks 
later. 

Case  7.  The  pamphlet  quotes  "Punctured  Feb.  27;  patient  died  Feb. 
28.  It  omits  the  fact  that  the  post-mortem  showed  that  the  child  died 
from  defective  development  of  the  brain  and  other  causes ;  and  that  the 
history  showed  that  the  child,  who  was  seven  months  of  age,  had 
"frequent  convulsions  which  began  when  he  was  about  three  months 
old.  While  in  the  hospital  the  convulsions  occurred  not  less  than  twenty 
times  a  day.     Oftentimes  he  had  several  in  an  hour." 

The  inference  from  the  pamphlet's  "brief  abstracts"  of  these  cases 
is  clearly,  and  it  seems  to  me  by  these  omissions  was  meant  to  be, 
that  the  deaths  were  due  to  the  lumbar  punctures,  whereas  the  evidence 
is  that  the  deaths  were  due  to  other  causes  and  in  two  instances  the 
operation  is  expressly  stated  not  to  have  done  any  harm.  Are  not  these 
abstracts    "garbled  and  inaccurate?" 

3.  On  page  7  the  pamphlet  refers  to  some  experiments  on  the  inocula- 
tion of  lepers  with  syphilis,  made  in  Hawaii,  but  published  in  the  N.  Y. 
Medical  Record  of  Sept.  10,  1892.  It  is  stated  that  the  patients  "were 
already  suffering  from  one  incurable  disease  and  the  object  of  the 
experiment  was  to  ascertain  whether  with  another,  and  even  worse  dis- 
order, they  might  not  be  infected."  This  statement  is  incorrect.  Most 
writers  recognize  only  three  stages  of  syphilis,  primary,  secondary  and 
tertiary.  The  writer  of  the  article  in  question  believed  that  leprosy  was 
a  fourth  and  final  stage  of  syphilis  and  not  an  independent  disease.  It 
is  a  well  recognized  fact  by  all  scientific  writers  that  a  patient  suffering 
from  syphilis  in  any  stage  is  immune  to  an  inoculation  of  the  virus ;  that 
is  to  say,  the  inoculation  will  not  "take"  if  he  is  already  a  syphilitic. 
It  was  for  the  purpose  of  determining  whether  leprosy  was  a  fourth 
stage  of  syphilis  that  the  attempt  was  made.  None  of  those  inoculated 
took  the  disease. 

4.  Sanarelli's  Experiments  on  the  Inoculation  of  Yellow  Fever,  page 
8 :  The  references  here  are  to  the  British  Medical  Journal  for  July  3, 
1897,  and  the  New  England  Medical  Monthly,  March,  1898.  The  extracts 
marked  with  quotation  marks  are  from  the  New  England  Medical 
Monthly.  Between  the  first  and  the  second  sentences  of  the  quotation 
there  should  be  some  stars  to  note  an  omission,  but  none  such  appear. 
The  omitted  words  state  that  not  the  germs  of  the  disease,  but  the 
carefully  filtered  and  sterilized  germ-free  fluid  was  used.  Besides  this 
and  many  other  minor  inaccuracies  many  of  the  scientific  terms  are 
changed  into  non-medical  terms,  which  is  not  objectionable  in  itself. 
But  such  changes  and  inaccuracies  should  exclude  quotation  marks, 
for  when  used  they  mean  that  the  words  quoted  are  the  ipsissima  verba 
of  the  author,  if  in  the  same  language,  or  an  exact  translation  if  from 
a  foreign  language. 

But  this  is  the  least  of  all.  The  pamphlet  says  that  the  injection  pro- 
duced certain  symptoms,  among  which  are  mentioned  "the  jaundice, 
the  delirium,  the  final  collapse,"  the  last  three  words  being  in  italics  in 
the  pamphlet  to  call  special  attention  to  them.  In  the  British  Medical 
Journal  and  in  the  New  England  Medical  Monthly  the  words  "the 
final"  are  not  to  be  found.  We  see  not  a  few  patients  suffering  from 
"jaundice,  delirium  and  collapse"  who  recover,  but  when  the  expres- 
sion is  changed  to  "the  final"  collapse  it  means  to  every  one  that 
the  patient  died. 

Moreover,  the  end  of  the  quotation  is  as  follows :  "I  have  seen  [the 
symptoms  of  yellow  fever]  unrolled  before  my  eyes  thanks  to  the 
potent  influence  of  the  yellow  fever  poison  made  in  my  laboratory." 
This  entire  sentence  does  not  occur  either  in  the  British  Medical  Journal 
or  in  the  New  England  Medical  Monthly.  Whether  it  is  quoted  from 
some  other  source  not  indicated,  or  has  been  deliberately  added,  I  leave 
you  or   "A.  Tracy"   to  explain. 


14  'The  Human  Vivisection  Controversy. 

Moreover,  immediately  afterward,  on  the  authority  of  the  Washington 
correspondent  of  the  Boston  Transcript,  it  is  stated:  "It  is  understood 
that  some,  if  not  all,  of  the  persons  inoculated  died  of  the  disease,"  and 
then  seven  times  afterward  are  repeated  "the  final  collapse,"  the  "unroll- 
ing before  the  eyes,"  "scientific  assassination,"  "death,"  and  "murder" 
quoted  from  a  public  speech  before  the  American  Humane  Association. 
Let  us  see  if  these  were    "murders." 

In  the  two  references  given  there  is  no  indication  whether  any  of 
these  patients  died  or  not.  How,  therefore,  "it  is  understood  that  some, 
if  not  all,  of  them  died,"  I  do  not  know.  As  a  matter  of  fact  none  of 
the  human  beings  inoculated  by  Sanarelli  died,  as  any  one  desirous  of 
learning  the  truth  could  have  ascertained  by  consulting  Sanarelli's  origi- 
nal publication  reporting  his  experiments  with  full  details.  (Annali 
d'lgieue  Sperimcntale,  1897,  vol.  vii,  Fascic.  iii,  pp.  345  and  433.) 

What  hysterical  oratory  about  "the  final  collapse,"  which  was  not 
final;  "scientific  assassination,"  which  did  not  assassinate;  and  "mur- 
der" of  those  who  were  so  disobliging  as  still  to  live !  And  this  on  the 
authority  of  the  Washington  correspondent  of  the  Boston  Transcript, 
who  the  pamphlet  assures  us  is  a  person  "who  would  seem  to  be  unusu- 
ally well  informed  in  matters  of  science !"  An  excellent  example  of 
"newspaper  medicine"  and  a  good  reason  for  my  refusal  to  accept  it 
as  evidence,  especially  from  other  correspondents  who  may  not  be  as 
"unusually  well  informed."  May  I  ask  whether  "the  Vienna  corre- 
spondent of  the  London  Morning  Leader"  is  also  one  of  those  who,  in 
your  opinion,  is  "unusually  well  informed  in  matters  of  science,"  and 
whether  his  testimony  is  as  wholly  false  as  the  one  under  considera- 
tion ? 

5.  On  page  23,  the  pamphlet  quotes  an  account  of  some  experiments 
of  Dr.  Neisser  from  the  "Medical  Press  and  Circular  [England],  of 
March  29,  1899."  This  is  an  instance  again  of  misquotation  and  omis- 
sion which  can  scarcely  be  other  than  intentional.  The  last  sentence 
of  the  first  quotation  states :  "of  these  eight  girls,  four  developed 
syphilis."  No  stars  indicate  that  any  words  have  been  omitted.  The 
original  reads :  "of  these  eight  girls  [five  were  prostitutes,  and  of  these 
five]  four  developed  syphilis."  The  words  in  brackets  are  entirely 
omitted  in  the  pamphlet.  They  make  a  deal  of  difference,  for  what  is 
more  probable  than  that  four  out  of  five  prostitutes  should  develop 
syphilis?  Whether  it  makes  any  differences  or  not,  however,  is  at 
present  not  the  question.  The  issue  is  whether  the  quotation  is  "garbled 
and  inaccurate."  Does  it  not  fulfill  another  of  the  definitions  of  "garb- 
ling" given  in  your  letter,  viz :  "omissions  of  essential  facts  .... 
sufficient  to  impair  the  accuracy  or  fairness  of  the  quotation?" 

Moreover  the  pamphlet's  comment  upon  this  case  is  as  follows :  "Does 
the  London  journal  which  reports  these  awful  experiments  denounce 
them  as  a  crime  against  every  law  of  morality?  Not  at  all.  It  simply 
says  that  "it  would  be  difficult  to  acquit  Dr.  Neisser  of  a  large  measure 
of  responsibility  in  respect  of  the  causation  of  syphilis  in  these  cases !' 
Could  reproof  be  more  gentle?" 

Is  that  really  all  that  the  Medical  Press  and  Circular  "simply  says?" 
On  turning  to  that  journal,  after  the  above  sentence,  which  is  correctly 
quoted,  the  editorial  continues  thus:  "We,  however,  are  less  concerned 
in  establishing  the  culpability  of  Dr.  Neisser  than  in  condemning"the 
spirit  which  prompted  such  experiments.  All  measures,  even  if  novel, 
which  may  reasonably  be  expected  to  assist  in  bringing  about  the 
recovery  of  the  patient  without  injury  to  his  health  may  legitimately  be 
resorted  to  with  the  consent  of  the  patient,  but  measures,  whether  by 
drugs  or  by  operation,  which  have  not  for  direct  object  the  cure  of  the 
patient  and  which  may  prove  inimical  to  his  health  or  condition,  are 
inadmissible  under  an}-  circumstances  and  must  expose  the  perpetrator 
to  professional  ostracism  and  to  penal  rebuke." 


Letter  of  Dr.  W.  W.  Keen.  i  5 

Is  "professional  ostracism  and  penal  rebuke"  a  reproof  than  which 
nothing  could  be  "more  gentle?"  If  this  statement  is  not  "garbled  and 
inaccurate,"  what  do  words  mean?  How  could  this  misrepresentation 
be  otherwise  than  intentional? 

6.  On  page  24  again,  reference  is  made  to  the  experiments  of  Menge.* 
The  extracts  being  in  quotation  marks  would  purport  to  be  exact  trans- 
lations. This  is  not  the  case.  The  collocation  of  the  paragraphs,  also — 
especially  in  the  smaller  pamphlet — is  such  that  it  would  be  supposed 
even  by  a  careful  reader  that  the  babies  experimented  upon  were  inocu- 
lated with  the  germs  taken  "from  the  pus  in  the  abdominal  cavity  of  a 
person  who  had  died  of  peritonitis,"  without  any  precautions  or  pre- 
liminary experiments,  and  that,  therefore,  these  babies  were  exposed  to 
a  fatal  infection.  This  is  not  true.  Four  columns  of  text  in  the 
original  intervene  between  the  first  and  the  second  paragraphs  alleged 
to  be  quoted,  and  these  detail  experiments  which  proved  that  the  inocu- 
lations which  he  then  carried  out  would  almost  certainly  be  harmless. 
The  result  showed  that  he  was  right,  for  not  the  slightest  ill  effects  fol- 
lowed. I  have  only  words  of  condemnation  for  Menge's  experiments, 
but  to  misrepresent  these  experiments  is  scarcely  less  culpable  than  to 
perform  them. 

7.  Then  follows  a  brief  account  of  Kroenig's  experiments.  The 
objects  of  these,  the  pamphlet  says,  were  "to  observe  the  surest  way 
of  breeding  purulent  bacteria."  This  is  not  true.  On  the  contrary,  his 
object,  like  Menge's,  was  to  determine  how  these  bacteria  are  normally 
destroyed  in  the  part  of  the  body  in  which  the  experiments  were  made. 
In  only  a  single  instance  did  any  ill  effects  follow,  and  in  this  case  the 
inflammation  was  brief  and  not  dangerous  either  to  life  or  health.  In 
fact,  the  very  titles  of  these  two  papers  proclaim  the  destruction  of  the 
bacteria  and  not  the  surest  way  of  breeding  them,  as  Menge's  title 
reads :  "On  a  quality  ( Verhalten)  of  the  vaginal  secretion  in  non-preg- 
nant females,  which  is  hostile  to  bacteria,"  and  Kroenig's  is  on  the  same 
peculiarity  in  pregnant  women. 

In  the  comment  of  these  two  series  of  experiments,  they  are  spoken  of 
as  inoculations  "with  loathsome  diseases,"  which  would  suggest  to  any 
one  that  the  patients  were  successfully  inoculated  with  syphilis  or  other 
similar  diseases.  This  was  not  the  case.  Only  inflammation  would 
follow  even  had  the  inoculations  been  successful. 

Moreover,  to  show  the  vague  looseness  of  the  alleged  quotations,  the 
two  paragraphs  on  the  experiments  of  Menge  are  in  quotation  marks 
and  are  introduced  by  the  words,  "He  says :  The  bacteria  I  used,  etc.," 
as  if  they  were  exact  continuous  translations.  "He  says"  nothing  of 
the  kind.  Instead  of  being  exact  translations,  the  first  paragraph  is  made 
up  of  partly  correct  and  partly  incorrect  translations  from  page  891 
near  the  top  of  the  second  column  and  near  its  middle ;  and  the  second 
paragraph  of  partly  correct  and  partly  incorrect  translations  from  page 
907  near  the  bottom  of  the  first  column.  No  reference  whatever  is 
given  to  Kroenig's  paper  either  by  number,  date  or  page.  Is  not  this 
"vague  and  indefinite?"  As  a  matter  of  fact  it  is  the  same  journal  (No. 
43,  p.  819)   as  Menge's  paper,  but  published  three  weeks  earlier. 

8.  On  page  25  is  one  of  the  most  outrageous  instances  of  garbling,  and 
mistranslation,  or  worse,  which  I  have  ever  known  to  be  perpetrated, 
even  in  antivivisectionist  publications.  It  relates  to  observations  and 
experiments  of  Professor  Schreiber,  reported  in  the  Deutsche  medi- 
cinische  Wffchenschrift  of  Feb.  19,  1891.  The  subject  is  introduced  with 
the  startling  caption :  "Inoculations  with  Tuberculin  and  Germs  of  Con- 
sumption." In  the  smaller  pamphlet  the  caption  is  simply:  "Injected 
Germs  of  Consumption."  What  was  injected  was  not  the  "germs  of 
consumption"    at  all,  but  tuberculin,  a  substance  which  at  the  date  of 

*  Deutsche  medicinishe  Wochenschrift \  1894,  Nos.  46  to  48. 


1 6  The  Human  Vivisection  Controversy. 

Professor  Schreiber's  publication  was  engaging  the  attention  of  physi- 
cians throughout  the  civilized  world  as  a  therapeutic  and  diagnostic 
agent.  To  describe  inoculations  with  tuberculin  as  "inoculations  with 
the  germs  of  consumption"  can  be  attributed  only  either  to  gross  ignor- 
ance or  to  wilful  disregard  of  the  truth. 

In  the  first  paragraph  occurs  the  sentence :  "He  began  with  one 
decimilligram  and  continued  to  inject  the  tuberculin  in  ever-increasing 
quantities,  until  he  at  last  injected  as  much  as  5  centigrams,  about  50 
times  as  much  as  Kock  said  was  the  maximum  dose  for  children  of 
three  to  five  years  old."  Any  fair  presentation  of  these  experiments 
would  have  included  Professor  Schreiber's  sentence,  which  he  prints 
in  bold- face  type:  "But  even  with  so  large  a  dose  injected  at  one  time, 
the  children  snowed  no  trace  of  a  reaction."  It  would  perhaps  be  too 
much  to  expect  your  society  to  have  indicated  on  what  grounds  Profes- 
sor Schreiber  was  led  to  the  employment  of  such  large  doses,  and  that 
his  observations  demonstrated  for  young  infants  an  exceptional  tolerance 
of  tuberculin,  a  phenomenon  for  which  there  are  analogies  with  other 
drugs. 

But  the  worst  falsification  is  the  succeeding  account,  in  the  form  of 
what  purports  to  be  an  exact  translation,  of  Schreiber's  inoculation  of  a 
boy  with  tuberculin.  The  alleged  quotation  begins :  "I  am  sorry  to  say 
that  it  is  very  difficult  to  obtain  subjects  for  such  experiments.  There 
are,  of  course,  plenty  of  healthy  children  in  consumptive  families,  but 
the  parents  are  not  always  willing  to  give  them  up."  The  words :  "I 
am  sorry  to  say  that,"  and  the  entire  next  sentence,  "There  are,  of 
course,  plenty  of  healthy  children,"  etc.,  are  not  in  the  original,  but  are 
additions  made  out  of  the  whole  cloth.  The  next  following  sentences 
contain  many  inaccuracies,  such  as  the  translation  of  the  German  words 
betrdchtlich  anschwollen  as  "swelled  up  enormously,"  instead  of 
"swelled  up  considerably."  But  the  worst  is  the  deliberate  insertion  of 
the  following  sentence,  italicized  in  the  pamphlet,  which  also  does  not 
occur  in  the  original:  "I  can  not  yet  say  whether  the  boy  will  be  con- 
sumptive in  consequence  of  my  treatment."  The  correct  translation  of 
Schreiber's  words  at  the  point  where  this  closing  sentence  appears  in 
the  pamphlet  is  as  follows :  "I  could  discover  no  other  alterations  in 
the  otherwise  apparently  healthy  boy."  [Andere  V er'dnderungen  konnte 
ich  an  dem  soust  gesund  schcinenden  Knaben  nicht  entdecken."] 

While  I  have  said  enough  about  this  case  to  substitute  my  charge  of 
garbling  and  inaccuracy,  I  can  not  refrain  from  utilizing  it  also  to  show 
the  utter  misapprehension  which  the  citation  of  detached  sentences  and 
paragraphs  from  the  medical  articles  is  calculated  to  create  in  the  mind 
of  a  non-medical  reader.  Even  when  the  words  are  quoted  correctly, 
they  are  likely,  when  detached  from  the  context,  to  give  rise  to  entirely 
false  impressions.  This  is  a  criticism  which  applies  not  only  to  other 
examples  cited  in  this  pamphlet,  but  to  a  very  large  number  of  reports 
of  experiments  and  of  quotations  from  medical  journals  and  books  cur- 
rent in  anti-vivisectionist  writings,  and  the  resulting  dissemination  of 
erroneous  conceptions  is  often  greater  even  than  that  caused  by  inaccu- 
rate or  garbled  quotations.  A  brief  explanation  of  the  present  example 
will  show  the  justification  of  this  charge. 

For  what  purpose  did  Professor  Schreiber  inoculate  the  boy  with 
tuberculin?  His  article  leaves  no  doubt  as  to  the  answer.  He  points 
out  the  importance  of  the  earliest  possible  recognition  of  tuberculosis 
in  a  patient  in  order  to  secure  the  best  curative  results.  The  boy's 
mother  had  consumption  and  the  author  calls  attention  to  the  frequency 
of  unrecognized  tuberculosis  in  the  offspring  of  tuberculous  parents. 
The  boy  received  a  small  dose — 1  milligram — of  tuberculin,  which  if  he 
were  free  from  tuberculosis  would  produce  no  effect  but  which  if  he 
had  unsuspected  tuberculosis  would  produce  a  transient — though  possibly 
a  severe — fever,  and  a  local  reaction  indicative  of  tuberculosis.      Such 


Letter  of  Dr.  IV.  W.  Keen.  1 7 

reaction  followed  the  injection  of  tuberculin,  and  the  diagnosis  of  tuber- 
culosis, which  had  not  been,  and  very  likely  could  not  have  been,  made 
in  any  other  way,  was  established.  I  do  not  know  what  could  have 
been  more  fortunate  for  this  boy  than  the  recognition  in  its  incipiency 
of  a  disease  previously  unsuspected  and  which,  recognized  thus  early, 
should  in  all  probability  be  cured  by  proper  treatment.  This  tuberculin 
test  is  constantly  employed  to  prevent  the  spread  of  tuberculosis  in  out 
cattle.  In  our  children  it  enables  us  to  discover  the  same  disease  in  an 
early,  curable  stage.  Shall  we  care  for  our  cattle  better  than  for  our 
children? 

Its  use  is  not  properly  to  be  called  an  "experiment"  at  all.  As  I 
write  this,  I  find  in  the  Journal  of  the  American  Medical  Association 
for  Jan.  12,  1901,  page  75,  three  cases  of  the  use  of  tuberculin  in  human 
beings  by  Prof.  J.  M,  Anders,  who  points  out  its  value  in  enabling  us 
to  diagnosticate  consumption  "in  latent  forms  and  dubious  cases,  how- 
ever incipient,"  long  before  percussion  or  the  stethoscope  will  reveal 
the  disease.  I  can  imagine  his  surprise  if  he  were  charged  with  making 
three  horribly  cruel  "experiments"  and  injecting  the  "germs  of  con- 
sumption !" 

It  is  euphemism  to  call  such  an  alleged  quotation,  in  which  words 
and  one  entire  sentence  are  interpolated  and  another  wholly  changed  in 
meaning,  a  "mistranslation"  or  even  a  "garbled  and  inaccurate" 
account.  Does  it  not  amount  to  literary  forgery?  It  is  another  illus- 
tration of  the  fact  that  when  an  anti-vivisectionist  attempts  to  say  any- 
thing about  scientific  experiments  either  the  moral  sense  is  blunted  or 
the  truth-telling  faculty  is  in  abeyance.  A  good  English  example  is 
the  misstatements  in  Miss  Frances  Power  Cobbe's  book,  laid  bare  by 
Victor  Horsley,  and  Schreiber's  and  Sanarelli's  cases  will  serve  as 
excellent  examples  of  American  misrepresentation — if  so  long  a  word  is 
needed  to  describe  them. 

I  am  sorry  my  reply  is  so  long,  but  in  fewer  words  I  could  not  explain 
the  many  and  gross  errors  to  be  pointed  out.  I  have  given  you  indeed 
"many"  instances  in  which  the  references  are  "vague  and  inaccurate," 
and  "some"  in  which  the  accounts  are  "garbled  and  inaccurate." 
These  adjectives  are,  I  submit,  very  mild  ones  to  apply  to  such  a 
pamphlet. 

You  can  hardly  be  surprised  after  the  extraordinary  and  repeated 
interpolations,  mistranslations  and  worse  which  I  have  demonstrated  in 
this  letter  that  I  am  unwilling  to  accept  any  alleged  quotation  or  trans- 
lation emanating  from  the  American  Humane  Association  as  accurate 
and  truthful  unless  I  can  compare  it  with  the  source  from  which  it  is 
derived. 

In  conclusion  let  me  commend  to  the  "Humane"  Association  the 
closing  words  of  President  Eliot's  letter,  to  be  found  on  pages  218-9 
of  the  "Hearing" :  "Any  attempt  to  interfere  with  the  necessary  pro- 
cesses of  medical  investigation  is,  in  my  judgment,  in  the  highest  degree 
inexpedient  and  is  fundamentally  inhuman." 

I  shall  take  the  liberty  of  publishing  my  reply.  I  suppose  that  you 
will  not  object  to  the  publication  of  your  letter  with  it  in  order  to 
explain  the  reason  for  the  reply. 

Very  respectfully  yours, 

William  W.  Keen,  M.D. 

ADDENDUM. 

Since  this  letter  was  written  I  have  seen  an  article  in  "Gould's  Year 
Book  of  Medicine  and  Surgery,"  1901  (Medical  Volume,  p.  327),  from 
the  Archives  of  Pediatrics  for  June,  1900.  p.  431,  by  H.  Oliphant  Nichol- 
son of  Edinburgh,  Scotland,  reporting  the  case  of  Annie  C,  a  girl  of 
two  years  and  eight  months  old. 


1 8  The  Human  Vivisection   Controversy. 

Dr.  Keen  proceeds  to  quote  further  particulars  regarding  the  medical 
treatment  employed  and  the  results  obtained  by  Dr.  Nicholson  in  his 
interesting  case  of  cretinism.  We  omit,  partly  because  this  Addendum 
was  not  included  in  Dr.  Keen's  letter  to  President  Brown,  but  prin- 
cipally because  this  case  of  legitimate  medical  treatment  has  not  the 
slightest  relation  to  matters  in  controversy.  Dr.  Keen  concludes  as 
follows : 

"If  Dr.  Berkley's  use  of  the  thyroid  extract,  which  cured  two  out 
of  eight  patients,  was  an  experiment,  and  its  administration  by  Dr. 
Nicholson  also  was  an  experiment,  the  more  of  such  happy  experi- 
ments we  could  have,  the  better." 


III. 

The  Reality  of  Human  Vivisection 

A     REVIEW     OF     DR.     KEEN'S    LETTER. 


At  last  we  have  from  the  pen  of  a  physician  and  surgeon  widely 
known  throughout  the  United  States,  what  is  practically  an  apology 
for  the  practice  of  Human  Vivisection.  Purporting  merely  to  criticize 
a  pamphlet  exposing  the  atrocity  in  question,  he  spares  no  argument 
that  might  tend  to  exonerate  those  charged  with  this  offense,  or  that 
would  cast  odium  upon  those  who  have  unveiled  to  the  public  eye  the 
horrors  of  hospital  experimentation  upon  the  helpless  and  the  poor. 
The  appearance  of  this  defense, — we  can  give  it  no  other  name, — is  of 
peculiar  and  painful  significance,  and  fully  justifies  the  apprehensions 
which  have  long  been  felt  in  regard  to  this  atrocious  practice. 

The  evolution  of  this  defense  is  of  interest.  At  the  "Hearing"  before 
a  Senate  Committee  in  Washington,  February  21,  1900,  Senator  Gallinger 
called  the  attention  of  Dr.  William  W.  Keen,  then  under  examination,  to 
certain  phases  of  scientific  experimentation  upon  human  beings.  "I  pre- 
sume," said  Dr.  Keen  in  reply,  "you  refer  to  a  pamphlet  issued  by  the 
American  Humane  Association.  I  have  only  to  say  in  reference  to  it 
that  there  were  a  number  of  experiments  which  I  would  utterly  con- 
demn. Of  the  experiments  narrated  in  that  pamphlet  I  have  looked 
up  every  one  that  I  could.  Only  two  are  alleged  to  have  been  done 
in  America.  Many  of  them  are  so  vague  and  indefinite  that  I  could 
not  look  them  up,  but  as  to  those  that  I  could,  some  are  garbled  and 
inaccurate,  not  all  of  them,  observe."1  How  skillfully  is  vague  repre- 
hension,— without  one  single  specification, — mixed  with  insinuation  of 
unreliability  and  literary  fraud !  The  president  of  the  American 
Humane  Association  challenged  Dr.  Keen  by  letter  to  make  good 
his  words;    and  after  some  months'  delay,  he  has  published  his  reply 


Review  of  Dr.  Keen's  Letter.  19 

in  the  Journal  of  the  American  Medical  Association  of  February  23, 
1901,  and  printed  it  for  distribution  in  pamphlet  form. 

It  is  a  document  which  it  is  difficult  to  characterize.  By  minutest 
criticism  of  words,  by  disparagement  and  detraction  in  all  conceivable 
ways,  or  by  actual  misstatements  of  fact,  he  has  endeavored  to  convey 
the  impression  that  the  charges  of  experimentation  upon  human 
beings  are,  on  the  whole,  incredible  and  absurd;  that  legitimate 
methods  of  medical  and  surgical  treatment  have  been  viciously  or 
ignorantly  exaggerated  into  "experiments," — when  there  was  no 
experiment; — and  that  no  cause  exists  for  denouncing  the  men  who 
have  been  charged  with  these  horrible  deeds.  Of  one  series  of 
experiments  only  (the  unspeakably  vile  and  atrocious  investigations 
of  Menge),  does  Dr.  Keen  affirm  his  condemnation;  but  the  intensity 
of  his  disapproval  he  at  once  permits  us  to  measure  by  the  statement 
that  "to  misrepresent  these  experiments  is  scarcely  less  culpable  than 
to  perform  them!"  Here,  assuredly,  Dr.  Keen  speaks  his  mind;  and 
we  have  no  doubt  that  these  inoculations  of  new-born  babes, — wrapped 
at  their  birth  in  sterile  towels  and  conveyed  from  the  bedside  to  the 
laboratory  for  experimentation — "sofort  nach  der  Geburt  in  sterile 
Tiicher  gehiilt,  und  ini  Laboratorium  su  den  Versuchen  verwendet,"2 — 
stand  in  his  judgment  on  a  moral  equality  with  the  misconceptions  of  a 
translator,  or  the  mistakes  of  a  copyist ! 

The  impression  of  a  careful  reader  of  Dr.  Keen's  letter  may  be 
that  in  these  apologetic  references  to  human  vivisectors  he  has  gone 
a  little  too  far.  But  should  we  not  remember  that  he  is  writing  in 
defense  of  others?  To  what  extent  an  advocate  in  discharging  his 
duty  may  be  allowed  to  overstep  those  bounds  of  fairness  or  of  veracity 
which  ordinarily  govern  the  conduct  of  honorable  men,  is  a  question 
upon  which  the  highest  authorities  are  not  agreed;  but  it  is  certain 
that  he  may  go  very  far.  Lord  Brougham,  before  he  became  the 
Lord  Chancellor  of  England,  in  one  of  the  greatest  of  his  speeches 
delivered  before  the  House  of  Lords,  laid  down  the  law  by  which  he 
was  governed,  in  the  following  terms : 

"  An  advocate,  by  the  sacred  duty  which  he  owes  his  client,  knows  in  the  discharge 
of  that  office  but  one  person  in  the  world, — that  client  and  none  other.  To  save 
that  client  by  all  means  and  expedients,  to  protect  that  client  at  all  hazards  and  costs 
to  all  others, — and  among  others,  to  himself,  is  the  highest  and  most  unquestioned  of 
his  duties  ;  and  he  must  not  regard  the  alarm — the  suffering — the  torment — the  de- 
struction which  he  may  bring  upon  any  other.  Nay,  separating  the  duties  of  a  patriot 
from  those  of  an  advocate  and  casting  them,  if  need  be,  to  the  wind,  he  must  go  on, 
reckless  of  consequence,  if  his  fate  it  should  unhappily  be  to  involve  his  country  in 
confusion  for  his  client's  protection."3 

Human  vivisection  may  be  said  to  be  on  trial  before  Public  Opinion. 
It  has  been  impeached  as  opposed  to  the  spirit  of  Christianity  on  account 
of  its  cruelty  and  for  its  absolute  disregard  of  human  rights,  and  Dr. 
Keen,  let  us  suppose,  is  counsel  for  the  defense.  In  the  criticisms  we 
propose  to  make  of  Dr.  Keen's  paper,  certain  clear  distinctions  should 


20  The  Human   Vivisection  Controversy. 

therefore  be  kept  in  mind.  For  Professor  Keen,  the  surgeon  and  mem- 
ber of  a  leading  Christian  denomination,  we  may  have,  of  course,  great 
respect;  but  for  the  specious  apologist  of  human  vivisectors,  we  shall 
not  be  sparing  in  criticism  and  reproof.  If  we  show  that  for  the  sake 
of  human  vivisectors  he  has  hesitated  at  no  device  of  apologetic  sug- 
gestion in  defense  of  unspeakable  outrages  upon  the  weak  and  defense- 
less, let  it  be  understood  that  we  are  denouncing  merely  the  advocate 
and  not  the  man.  If  such  advocacy  has  imposed  silence  where  we 
had  hoped  for  outspoken  condemnation;  if  he  has  abundant  epithets 
of  scorn  and  vituperation  for  the  errors  of  a  translator,  but  no  words 
of  mildest  censure  for  some  of  the  vilest  crimes  against  Humanity, — 
the  inoculation  of  innocent  children  with  foul  disease,  the  grafting  of 
cancers  into  the  healthy  breasts  of  unconscious  women  by  men  of  his 
profession,  or  the  inoculation  of  hospital  patients  with  yellow  fever;  if 
unbounded  zeal  has  sometimes  seemed  to  carry  him  even  beyond  the 
borders  of  truth,  and  caused  him  to  rely  upon  petty  tricks  of  duplicity 
and  equivocation,  we  shall  assume  that  it  is  due  to  that  mistaken  advo- 
cacy which  he  so  unwisely  undertook.  The  vileness  of  the  practice, 
which  he  seems  to  defend  by  interposition  of  his  professional  repute, 
no  words  can  express.  For  whatever  endeavors  he  has  put  forth  to 
turn  aside  the  execration  sure  to  overtake  it  when  the  facts  are  fully 
known,  we  believe  that  Dr.  Keen  will  one  day  experience  the  bitterest 
regret. 

We  wish  to  do  Dr.  Keen  no  injustice  in  the  criticisms  we  -are  about 
to  make.  He  will  doubtless  protest  loudly  that  he  sufficiently  voiced 
his  condemnation  of  the  practice  in  that  reply  to  Senator  Gallinger, 
which  we  have  just  quoted.  But  such  words  of  vague  reprehension, 
unaccompanied  as  they  were,  by  any  word  of  specific  reproof,  resem- 
ble precisely  the  denunciations  of  that  prudent  puritan,  who  preached 
most  vigorously  against  "the  exceeding  sinfulness  of  sin."  Such 
methods  of  condemnation  touch  the  sensibilities  of  no  offender.  One 
by  one,  in  careful  examination  of  details  Dr.  Keen  has  weighed  some 
■of  the  worst  conceivable  experiments  upon  women  and  children,  related 
in  the  pamphlet  Human  Vivisection;  which  experimenter  of  them  all 
has  he  dared  to  denounce?  Not  one  has  he  named,  or  even  referred 
to  in  any  such  way  as  would  hinder  the  man  from  grasping  his 
hand  in  gratitude  and  tacit  appreciation.  No  reader  of  Dr.  Keen's 
paper  can  doubt  for  a  moment  where  his  sympathies  lie.  No  "condem- 
nation" of  his,  which  mingles  one  word  of  mild  disapprobation  with  a 
thousand  of  strenuous  defense,  is  of  the  slightest  weight.  No  con- 
demnation can  have  value  which  refers  to  crime  with  apology,  and 
mentions   criminals  with   respect. 

For  plainness  of  speech  or  emphasis  of  condemnation  we  shall  offer 
no  apology;  the  subject  requires  it.  Again  and  again,  as  a  method 
of  defense,  Dr.  Keen  has  insinuated  against  the  American  Humane 
Association,  charges  of  literary  dishonesty,  the  utter  falsity  of  some 
of  which — as  we  shall  demonstrate, — he  should  have  known.  Such 
methods  of  controversy  demand  plain  speech.     We  shall  utter  no  words 


Review  of  Dr.  Keens  Letter.  21 

that  have  not  truth  for  their  basis;  we  shall  demonstrate,  rather  than 
assert;  we  shall  be  fair  and  just,  but  there  shall  be  no  cause  on  the 
part  of  human  vivisectors  or  their  apologists  to  complain  that  our 
meaning  is  vague  or  obscure. 

In  attempting  to  nullify  the  disclosures  regarding  Hospital  experi- 
mentation made  by  the  American  Humane  Association  in  the  pamph- 
let on  Human  Vivisection,  Dr.  Keen  has  directed  his  attack  along  vari- 
ous lines.     We  propose  to  meet  him,  and  to  consider : 

I.     The  Question  of  Vague  and  Indefinite  Quotation. 

Were  "many"  of  the  experiments  related  in  the  pamphlet  "Human 
Vivisection"  so  vague  and  indefinite  that  Dr.  Keen  could  not  look  them 
up?    Is  human  vivisection  a  reality  or  a  myth? 

II.     The  Question  of  Garbled  Quotation. 

Brevity  of  quotation  zuas  necessary.  Were  the  omissions  made  by 
the  compilers  of  that  pamphlet  of  vital  importance  for  determining  either 
the  fact  of  such  experimentation,  or  the  morality  of  the  acts  condemned, 
or  zvere  they  on  the  contrary  absolutely  non-essential  to  any  such  judg- 
ment? 

III.     The  Question  of  Controversial  Ethics. 

Has  human  vivisection  been  palliated  by  the  suggestion  of  conclusions 
contrary  to  fact? 

These  are  practically  the  only  points  at  issue.  We  propose  to  show 
that  although  some  mistakes  were  made  by  copyists  or  translators,  they 
were  of  a  character  that  could  not  in  a  single  case,  change  condemna- 
tion into  approval,  or  lessen  the  abhorrence  due  to  crime.  We  shall 
illustrate  the  method  by  which  the  offenses  of  human  vivisectors  may  be 
palliated  by  the  shrewd  suggestion  of  conclusions  manifestly  false.  We 
intend  to  prove  beyond  all  question  that  human  vivisection  is  a  reality 
and  not  a  myth ;  and  that  of  the  experiments  related  in  that  pamphlet, 
"many"  were  not  so  indefinite  and  vague  that  Dr.  Keen  could  not  look 
them  up.  All  this  assumption  of  ignorance  regarding  experiments  which 
have  been, — and  are, — the  open  scandal  of  the  medical  world,  is  pretence 
as  unreal  as  that  of  the  Tammany  politician  who  questions  the  prevalence 
of  vice,  or  the  existence  of  vicious  resorts,  flourishing,  it  may  be,  on 
his  own  block. 

I. 
The  Question  of  Vague  Quotation. 

In  his  reply  to  Senator  Gallinger,  before  quoted,  Dr.  Keen  declared 
regarding  the  experiments  narrated  in  that  pamphlet  that  many  "are  so 
vague  and  indefinite  that  I  could  not  look  them  up."  In  other  words, 
regarding    "many  of  the  experiments"    he  could  not  find  proof  that  they 


22  The  Human  Vivisection  Controversy. 

had  been  made !  That  statement  was  challenged.  It  was  pointed  out 
by  the  President  of  the  American  Humane  Association  that,  with  one 
exception,  every  phase  of  experimentation  specifically  mentioned  had 
some  reference  to  a  medical  authority.  Now,  how  is  this  issue  met 
by  Dr.  Keen? 

It  is  met  by  evasion.  Instead  of  acknowledging  his  error,  Dr.  Keen, 
arbitrarily,  and  without  permission  of  anyone,  changes  the  issue.  "I 
stated/'  he  says  in  his  reply  to  President  Brown,  "that  many  of  the 
references  were  vague  and  indefinite."  Absolutely  untrue;  he  stated 
nothing  of  the  kind ;  we  quoted  his  words  at  the  outset,  precisely  as 
they  stand— revised  by  himself, — in  the  Report  of  the  Hearing.  Does  he 
claim  that  they  mean  the  same  thing?  Then  why  did  he  change  them? 
It  is  easy  to  see. 

As  an  illustration  of  what  is  meant  by  experiments  so  "vague  and 
indefinite"  that  one  cannot  look  them  up,  let  us  glance  at  the  horrible 
"cancer-grafting"  cases  of  certain  European  surgeons,  to  which  the 
pamphlet  Human  J'ivisection  first  directed  attention  on  this  side  of  the 
Atlantic.  To  a  hospital  in  France  a  poor  woman  was  brought  one  day 
suffering  from  cancer  of  the  breast.  An  operation  was  necessary;  she 
consented,  and  was  put  under  the  influence  of  chloroform.  After  the 
operation,  and  while  the  patient  was  still  unconscious  from  the  effect 
of  the  anaesthetic,  the  operating  surgeon,  Dr.  Doyen,  carefully  inserted 
a  bit  of  the  cancer  he  had  just  removed  into  the  healthy  breast  of  the 
victim.  The  wound  healed ;  nothing  at  first  excited  the  patient's  appre- 
hension or  alarm.  Then,  some  weeks  after,  she  found,  doubtless  to  her 
unspeakable  horror  and  despair,  a  new  cancer  in  the  opposite  breast ! 
And  the  crime  was  repeated. 

Let  us  give  a  brief  summary  of  these  two  scientific  experiments  in 
Dr.  Cornil's  own  words:     (italics  ours.) 

"  L'operateur,  apres  avoir  enleve  cette  tumeur,  en  a  sectionne  un  tres  petit  frag- 
ment, et  l'a  insere  sous  la  peau  du  sein  du  cote  oppose  qui etait  parfaitment  normal. 
L' operation  avait  ete  faite  pendant  le  sommeil  chloroformique  avec  les  precautions 
antiseptiques." 

The  second  case  was  almost  exactly  the  same : 

"  Apres  l'ablation  du  sein  malade  et  pendant  le  sommeil  c/iloroformiqiie,  le  chirur- 
gien  insera  dans  le  tissu  glandulaire  du  sein  du  cote  oppose,  un  petit  fragment  de  la 
tumeur  enlevee.     La  greffe  suivit  la  meme  evolution.'-4 

When  Prof.  Cornil  read  an  account  of  these  human  vivisections  before 
the  Academy  of  Medicine  in  Paris,  at  the  meeting  of  June  23,  1891,  the 
members, — horrified  by  such  disclosures. — hastened  to  record  their  deep- 
est condemnation.  "In  the  name  of  French  surgery,  in  the  name  of 
morality,  I  cannot  too  emphatically  protest  against  this  experiment," 
exclaimed  Dr.  Leon  Le  Fort.  "It  is  surgical  immorality,"  cried  Dr. 
Larrey.  "It  is  an  essentially  criminal  act."  said  Dr.  Moutard-Martin. 
Then  in  the  outcry  of  abhorrence  that  arose  throughout  Europe,  it  was 


Review  of  Dr.  Keen's  Letter.  23 

discovered  that  exactly  similar  experiments  had  not  only  been  made 
in  Germany,  but — worst  of  all, — they  had  been  openly  described  at  meet- 
ings of  physicians  and  surgeons,  one  of  which  was  the  18th  Congress 
of  the  German  Medical  Association !  The  special  correspondent  of  the 
British  Medical  Journal  wrote  thus  from  Berlin : 

"  The  question  whether  a  surgeon  is  justified  in  inoculating  a  patient  with  minute 
particles  of  cancer  is  being  as  much  discussed  in  medical  circles  in  Berlin  as  it  is  in 
Paris.  A  Dr.  Leidig — not  a  medical  man  but  a  lawyer, — has,  in  the  public  press 
accused  Professors  Hahn  and  von  Bergmann  of  having  inoculated  carcinomatous 
patients  with  particles  of  cancer,  in  places  where  they  were  not  diseased  and  of  hav- 
ing thus  artificially  produced  new  cancerous  foci.  In  proof  of  his  accusation,  Dr. 
Leidig  quoted  the  following  passages,   from  the  Deutsche  rnedicinische  Wochenschrift- 

1.  Meeting  of  the  Berlin  Medical  Society  (Medicinische  Gesellschaft)  of  Nov.  2, 
1887.  "  Herr  E.  Hahn  believes  that  he  has  proved  by  experiment  that  cancer  is  trans- 
ferable. He  had  removed  particles  of  three  nodules  from  a  female  patient  suffering 
from  carcinome  dissemine  with  scissors,  and  had  implanted  them  in  different  spots  of 

the  body.     All  three  particles  increased  in  size  developing  in  cancer :" 

2.  Eighteenth  Congress,  German  Medical  Society,  April  25,  1889.  "  Herr  E.  Hahn 
called  attentiofi  to  the  experiment  performed  by  him  two  years  ago,  in  which  an  ex- 
cised piece  of  caticer  nodule  from  a  female  patient  with  incurable  caiicer,  was  im- 
planted in  a  distant  part  of  the  body  and  covered  with  healthy  skin.  The  nodule 
developed  and  increased  to  five  times  its  size  ;  the  surrounding  tissue  showed  clearly 
the  typical  structure  of  cancer.  Herr  von  Bergmann  (of  Berlin)  has  repeated  Hahn'1  s 
experiment  with  a  similar  result. " 

No  answer  having  been  made  to  Dr.  Leidig' s  accusation  by  Profs.  Hahn  and  von 
Bergmann,  the  Cultus  Minister  intervened,  and  a  few  days  ago  demanded  an  imme- 
diate answer  from  both  gentlemen."5 

For  Dr.  Keen's  special  benefit,  we  now  quote  the  original  report  of  Dr. 
Hahn's  remarks,  thus  referred  to  by  Dr.  Leidig : 

"  Herr  E.  Hahn  glaubt  durch  ein  Experiment  die  Uebertragbarkeit  des  Carcinoms 
erwiesen  zu  haben.  Er  hat  einer  Patientin  die  an  Carcinome  dissemine  litt  von  drei 
Knotchen  mit  einer  Scheere  auf  Art  der  Reverdin'  schen  Transplantation  Thiele  ent- 
fernt  und  an  ganz  entfernten  Stetten  implantirt.  Alle  drei  K?wtchen  sind  fortge- 
ivachsen  und  habe/i  sich  als  Carcinome  iveiter  enlwichelt.'''6 

It  was  the  surgical  scandal  of  all  Europe.  The  British  Medical  Jour- 
nal editorially  denounced  the  French  surgeon's  experiments  in  cancer- 
grafting  as  "an  outrage,  not  only  upon  the  unhappy  persons  referred 
to,  but  upon  the  whole  medical  profession."7  The  daily  press  discussed 
these  abominable  investigations  with  various  expressions  of  popular 
abhorrence  and  condemnation.  Certainly  if  any  question  affects  the 
welfare  of  every  woman,  it  is  this.  What  wife,  mother  or  sister  under- 
going a  surgical  operation,  would  be  safe,  if,  while  unconscious,  such 
"experiments"  may  be  made,  and  the  crime  tacitly  condoned,  by  all 
failure  to  condemn  the  perpetrators? 

Every  medical  man  with  any  general  education  whatever  is  perfectly 
aware  of  this  phase  of  human  vivisection.  Only  two  years  ago,  one  of 
the  most  eminent  of  living  American  surgeons,  Dr.  Roswell  Park,  in  a 


24  The  Human  Vivisection  Controversy. 

paper  read  before  the  New  York  State  Medical  Society,  not  only  spoke 
of  these  cancer-grafting  experiments  of  Dr.  Doyen,  but  alluded  to 
other  crimes  of  the  same  nature,  not  yet  made  publicly  known.  After 
referring  to  various  experiments  upon  animals,  Dr.  Park  says : 

"  But  of  still  greater  interest  are  the  inoculations  of  cancer/r<?7«  man  to  man.  Bosc 
(of  Montpelier)  alludes  to  three  cases  with  which,  he  says,  he  is  personally  familiar 
where  he  intimates  that  this  has  been  do?ie,  both  intentionally  and  successfully,  yet  he 
is  discreetly  silent  with  regard  to  details."6     (Italics  ours.) 

To  these  experiments,  the  pamphlet.  Human  Vivisection,  devoted  more 
space  than  to  any  other.  Of  the  occurrence  of  these  infamous  deeds,  Dr. 
Keen,  as  an  educated  surgeon,  could  have  had  no  more  real  doubt  than  he 
has  of  the  late  outbreak  in  China,  regarding  which,  we  dare  say,  his  only 
source  of  information  is  that  daily  press,  which  he  seems  to  hold  so 
greatly  in  contempt.  The  facts  are  beyond  question.  How  does  Dr.  Keen 
meet  this  terrible  charge?  By  any  admission  of  its  truth?  By  any  con- 
demnation of  the  atrocity?  Does  he  denounce  Drs.  Doyen,  von  Berg- 
mann  and  Hahn?  Does  he  join  the  leading  surgeons  of  France  in  stig- 
matizing their  cancer-grafting  experiments  as  "surgical  immorality,"  and 
as  "essentially  immoral?"  No.  Not  one  word  of  censure  escapes  him. 
But  looking  closely,  he  discovers  that  in  the  pamphlet  Hitman  Vivi- 
section, certain  quotations  from  editorials  in  German  newspapers  refer- 
ring to  this  scandal  of  the  day  are  without  exact  dates ;  he  finds,  too, 
that  Dr.  Leidig's  accusation  has  no  date,  (although  it  was  referred  to 
by  the  British  Medical  Journal  in  a  passage  just  quoted,  equally  with- 
out such  specification),  and  forthwith  Dr.  Keen  holds  up  these  trifles  in 
■  such  way  as  to  convey  the  impression  that  the  whole  charge  rests  upon 
anonymous  newspapers!  Of  five  "newspaper  references,"  which  Dr. 
Keen  puts  forward  as  the  alleged  authorities  upon  which  the  charge 
rests,  and  which  he  declares  "impossible  of  consultation  for  want  of  any 
date  whatever,"  four  were  nothing  but  editorial  comments  or  expres- 
sions of  opinion  upon  events  which  were  otherwise  vouched  for  by  medi- 
cal authorities,  events  which  were  of  notoriety  throughout  Europe,  and  of 
which  as  an  educated  man,  he  could  have  had  no  more  real  doubt  than  he 
has  of  the  battle  of  Bunker  Hill !  We  cannot  better  illustrate  the  utter 
untruth  of  Dr.  Keen's  statement  that  these  editorial  comments  were 
presented  as  ''authorities,"  than  by  printing  a  few  of  them  herewith. 
The  reader  can  then  see  just  how  important  were  the  dates. 

"  The  relation  between  patient  and  physician  rests  on  the  complete  personal  confi- 
dence of  the  former  that  the  latter  will  use  the  best  and  safest  means  to  attain  the 
desired  end  ;  and  that  his  actions  will  only  be  intended  to  ease  the  sufferings  and 
lengthen  the  life  of  the  patient.  Should  the  principle  that  '  Scientific  Research  can  do 
what  it  likes  with  the  bodies  of  patients,'  be  accepted,  that  relation  would  be  destroyed: 
Among  the  poorer  classes  the  idea  is  unfortunately  already  prevalent,  that  this  princi- 
ple is  acted  upon  in  public  hospitals.  ...  At  present,  people  fear  that  doubtful 
or  even  dangerous  drugs  and  methods  of  cure  will  be  tried  on  them.  But  what  will 
be  the  result  if  thev  get  hold  of  the  idea  that  they  will  be  inoculated  with  new  diseases, 


Reviezv  of  Dr.  Keen's  Letter.  25 

in  order  that  their  course  may  be  coolly  studied  upon  them  ?  The  fact  that  both  the 
accused  doctors  are  Directing  Physicians  of  large  Hospitals  brings  home  the  danger 
that  such  fears  may  be  aroused." — Danzeiger  Zeitung,July  2j,  i8gi. 

"Such  an  act  betrays  a  serious  hardening  of  the  mind,  and  degeneration  of  the 
medical  conscience.  .  .  .  Should  the  practice  become  common,  no  sufferer  would 
be  safe,  if  the  doctors  thought  him  incurably  ill.  .  .  .  It  is  a  step  off  the  right 
road,  and  it  must  be  made  an  example  of,  so  that  patients  may  feel  assured  that  those 
they  take  for  benevolent  physicians  do  not  change  to  brutal  vivisectors  who  treat  men 
as  their  '  beasts  for  research.''  " — Schlesische  Volkszeitung,  July  2j,  iSqi. 

"  If  experiments  on  living  people  are  absolutely  necessary,  the  doctors  might  be  kind 
enough  to  perform  them  on  themselves,  not  even  on  willing  patients, — for  it  is  well 
known  how  such  '  willingness '  is  procured.  We  should  have  no  objection  to  an  addi- 
tion to  our  penal  code,  by  which  the  making  of  such  experiments  dangerous  to  life 
and  health,  on  patients,  without  their  knowledge,  or  with  their  consent,  procured  by 
false  representations,  should  be  punished  by  imprisonment  and  loss  of  civil  rights. 
This  is  a  case  for  stringent  measures,  for  otherwise  we  shall  find  ourselves  in  the  hands 
of  doctors,  who,  'in  the  interests  of  Science,'  do  not  care  more  for  the  life  and  health 
of  their  patients  than  for  the  young  dogs  and  rabbits  on  which  the  physiologists  are  in 
the  habit  of  practicing  their  fury  of  research.'''' 

— Hamburger  Nachrichten,  July  18,  i8qi. 

"In  a  battle,  a  general  sends  a  regiment  to  certain  death  to  gain  the  victory  for  the 
rest  of  the  army.     Should  ?iot  a  doctor  be  allowed  to  act  in  a  similar  way  ? ' ' 

—  Vossische  Zeitung,  Berlin,  July  19,  1891. 

Every  reader  can  see  that  these  editorial  extracts  are  simply  side- 
lights upon  history ;  they  are  not  "authorities"  which  Dr.  Keen  could 
have  had  the  slightest  anxiety  to  consult;  and  the  same  remark  applies 
to  Dr.  Berdoe's  letter  in  the  London  Chronicle, — the  date  of  which,  by 
the  way,  was  Sept.  10,  1897.  And  yet  these  expressions  of  public  senti- 
ment regarding  events  that  were  the  universal  scandal  of  the  day,  com- 
ments that  did  not  claim  to  be  authorities  or  proofs,  Dr.  Keen  has  the 
face  to  bring  forward  in  support  of  his  charge  that  "many  (experiments) 
were  so  vague  and  indefinite  that  I  could  not  look  them  up !"  These  are 
"authorities"  upon  which, — he  tells  President  Brown, — "you  depend  for 
the  accuracy  of  your  statements  !"  What  are  we  to  think  of  a  writer  who 
adopts  such  a  method  of  controversy?  Is  it  Dr.  Keen's  conception  of 
fair  dealing,  either  with  his  opponents,  with  the  general  public  or  with 
the  medical  profession? 

2.  Let  us  take  another  illustration  of  Dr.  Keen's  statement  that  "many 
experiments  were  so  vague  and  indefinite"  that  he  could  not  look  them 
up.  The  pamphlet  Human  Vivisection  gives  a  quotation  from  Tertullian, 
who  lived  nearly  seventeen  hundred  years  ago.  The  quotation  certainly 
had  nothing  to  do  with  the  practices  of  to-day;  it  was  merely  of  his- 
torical interest.  Dr.  Keen  looks  for  it,  and  then,  referring  to  the  vol- 
ume to  which  it  was  credited,  boldly  asserts  that  "no  such  quotation 
exists  on  pages  430-433."  Now,  let  us  suppose  that  some  reader  who 
does  not  care  to  take  Dr.  Keen's  word  as  infallibly  correct,  concludes 
to  test  this  assertion.  He  opens  the  volume  referred  to  at  page  430; 
finishes  the  sentence  at  foot  of  the  page, — and  there  is  the  very  quotation 
On  the  second  line  of  page  431,  where  he  cannot  possibly  help  seeing  it 


26  The  Human   Vivisection  Controversy. 

if  he  reads  the  page  to  which  it  was  ascribed  !9  No  reader  who  takes 
the  trouble  to  consult  the  volume  can  doubt  that  Dr.  Keen  saw  it.  The 
temptation,  however,  to  make  a  printer's  error  (430,  433,  instead  of  430- 
433)  do  service  as  an  imputation  of  literary  dishonesty  was  too  strong 
to  resist,  especially  since  not  one  reader  in  a  thousand  would  ever  take 
the  trouble  to  test  the  veracity  of  the  statement.  But  how  hard  pressed 
must  be  the  cause  that  in  defense,  needs  the  help  of  artifices  like  this ! 

3.  Regarding  Finger's  abominable  experiments  upon  women  who  had 
just  passed  through  the  pangs  cf  child-birth,  the  reference  in  the  pamph- 
let gave  the  name  of  the  periodical  and  the  number,  but  in  some  way 
omitted  the  year.  "No  such  paper  by  Finger  is  published  in  that  journal, 
at  least  from  1890  to  the  present  time,"  cries  Dr.  Keen, — wisely  modify- 
ing his  emphatic  statement  by  a  saving  clause.  The  account  of  these 
experiments  as  related  in  Human  Vivisection,  is  to  be  found  in  the 
volume  for  1885. 

4.  In  a  lecture  before  the  "Society  of  Swedish  Physicians,"  delivered 
May  12,  1891,  a  Dr.  Carl  Janson  of  Stockholm  gave  an  account  of  cer- 
tain experiments  he  had  made  upon  children  in  a  Foundling  Asylum,  not 
because  they  were  most  suitable,  but  because  calves  were  more  expen- 
sive. Regarding  these  experiments,  Dr.  Keen,  of  course,  indicates  his 
scepticism.  "The  first  requisite,"  he  says,  "is  to  know  whether  they 
(the  facts)  are  correctly  quoted."  We  beg  to  differ;  the  first  requisite 
is  to  know  whether  any  such  experiments  on  outcast  little  children  in 
a  charitable  institution  were  actually  performed — not  whether  some 
details  have  been  omitted  or  some  sentences  inaccurately  translated. 
Now  such  experiments  were  made.     Dr.  Janson  states  in  his  address: 

"  Perhaps  I  should  have  first  experimented  upon  animals;  but  calves, — the  most 
suitable, — ivere  difficult  to  obtain  because  of  their  cost  and  their  keep.  Accordingly, 
by  the  kind  permission  of  the  head-physician  Professor  Medin,  I  began  my  experi- 
ments upon  children  in  the  General  Asylum  for  Children  (Foundling  Asylum),  in 
Stockholm.  .  .  .  After  I  had  continued  .  .  .  these  experiments  about  a  year, 
I  discontinued  them,  with  the  resolution  of  resuming  them  when  an  opportunity 
offered."     (Italics  ours.) 

In  verification  of  this,  we  now  quote  the  German  account  of  these 
experiments,  probably  translated  from  some  Swedish  source. 

"  Vielleicht  hatte  ich  zuerst  an  Thieren  Versuche  anstellen  sollen,  die  geeignetsten 
jedoch,  namlich  Kalber,  voaren  indessen  Hirer  Kosten  wegen  schwer  zu  beschaffen  tend 
zu  unterhalten,  weshalb  ich — mit  gutiger  Erlaubniss  des  Oberarztes,  Professor  Medin, 
— meine  Experimente  an  Kinder n  im  allgemeinen  Kinderhause,  (Findelhause)  zu 
Stockholm  begann.  .  .  .  Ich  walte  Variola  vaccina  als  die  zum  Experimentiren 
geeignete  Krankheit. 

Nachdem  ich  mit  diesen  .  .  .  Yersuchen  ungefahr  1  Jahr  lang  angehelten 
hatte,  horte  ich  mit  dem  Yorsatze  auf,  dieselben  bei  Gelegenheit  von  tieuem  wieder 
a u fz u n eli men.'''  ln 

By  his  own  statement  the  fact  is  proven  that  this  Dr.  Janson  regarded 
animals  as  most  suitable  for  his  inoculations,  but  nevertheless  made  his 


Review  of  Dr.  Keen's  Letter.  27 

experiments  upon  children  in  a  charitable  institution,  with  ''the  kind 
permission  of  the  Head-physician,"  because  ''calves  were  expensive," 
and  infant  humanity  no  doubt  was  cheap  !  It  was  to  this  astounding 
confession  only,  that  Human  Vivisection  drew  attention. 

A  close  comparison  of  the  quotation  in  Human  Vivisection  with  the 
German  report  of  Janson's  lecture  reveals  the  existence  of  some  dis- 
crepancies,— arising,  one  cannot  tell  how — but  to  which  an  apologist  for 
Dr.  Janson  would  of  course  be  quick  to  point.  We  should  expect  Dr. 
Keen  to  tell  us  that  the  experimenter's  name  was  Janson,  not  Jansen; 
that  the  address  was  made  before  The  Society  of  Swedish  Physicians, 
and  not  the  Medical  Society  of  Stockholm  ;  that  the  inoculations 
were  made  with  variola  vaccine,  not  small-pox  pus ;  that  the  apparently 
continuous  quotation  was  made  up  of  several  detached  sentences,  some- 
times misplaced;  and  that  instead  of  saying:  "I  intend  to  go  back  to 
my  experiments  in  the  Foundling  Hospital  at  some  future  time,"  Dr. 
Janson  really  said  of  his  human  vivisections, — "I  discontinued  them  with 
the  resolution  of  resuming  them  when  an  opportunity  offered."  These 
are  grave  literary  defects,  if  the  translation  was  made  from  the  German; 
it  may  possibly  have  been  made  from  the  Swedish.  But  will  anyone, — 
save  an  apologist  for  human  vivisection — insist  that  such  inaccuracies 
should  nullify  our  condemnation  of  a  physician  who  confesses  to  have 
experimented  upon  little  children,  in  a  charitable  institution,  merely 
because  calves  were  expensive,  both  to  buy  and  to  keep? 

We  shall  again  refer  to  this  charge  of  "vague  and  indefinite"  experi- 
ments when  we  come  to  speak  of  a  more  serious  matter. 


II. 

The  Question  of  Garbled  Quotations. 

1.  Before  touching  this  question  of  inaccurate  quotation  to  which  Dr. 
Keen  has  devoted  so  much  research  and  argument,  let  us  ask  what  the 
compilers  of  Human  Vivisection  manifestly  aimed  to  do?  Assuredly 
they  did  not  attempt  to  write  a  treatise.  The  extracts  were  brief,  and 
yet  brevity  was  unavoidable.  To  have  printed  in  full,  the  papers  from 
which  these  excerpts  were  taken  would  have  required  a  large  volume; 
the  full  translation  of  Menge's  articles  alone  would  occupy  thirty  pages 
the  size  of  this.  What  the  compilers  sought  to  do  was  simply  this :  to 
demonstrate  by  a  few  brief  and  condensed  statements,— taken  almost 
without  exception  from  medical  sources, — the  fact  that  experimenta- 
tion upon  human  beings  is  not  a  myth,  but  an  awful  reality,  and  that 
both  the  practice,  and  the  men  guilty  of  it  should  be  emphatically  and 
impartially  condemned.  When  Dr.  Keen,  attempting  to  create  doubt 
and  confuse  judgment,  told  Senator  Gallinger  that  some  experiments 
were  "garbled  and  inaccurate,"  he  was  challenged  to  point  out  any 
such  suppression  of  facts  as  would  cause  him  to  give  approval  to  the 
deeds.  Everything  that  could  possibly  tend  to  mitigate  condemnation 
of  the  perpetrators  or  throw  doubt  upon  the  reality  of  the  deed  itself, 


28  The  Human  Vivisection  Controversy. 

he  has  suggested  or  implied  in  his  letter;  but  that  open  sanction  he 
was  invited  to  give,  he  has  prudently  withheld.  The  vilest  experimenters 
he  has  failed  to  rebuke,  but  he  dared  not  openly  commend  them. 

2.  It  is  not  to  be  denied  that  in  his  microscopic  examination  of  the 
pamphlet  Human  Vivisection,  Dr.  Keen  has  brought  to  light  a  few 
errors  of  translators  or  transcribers,  wholly  unknown  to  the  compilers 
of  Human  Vivisection,  and  which  of  course  will  be  corrected  in  any 
future  edition.  With  one  or  two  exceptions,  these  inaccuracies  pertain 
to  a  special  class  of  investigations  made  in  Germany  upon  hospital 
patients  there,  and  the  errors  consist  for  the  most  part,  of  too  free 
translations  from  the  original  German  text.  For  none  of  these  trans- 
lations was  the  American  Humane  Association  in  any  way  responsi- 
ble; the  compilers  of  Human  Vivisection  found  them  in  print,  and 
considering  their  source,  and  the  fact  that  in  each  case  the  original 
authority  was  duly  given,  there  seemed  no  reason  to  doubt  their  verbal 
accuracy  in  every  respect. 

3.  But  the  point  we  insist  upon  is  this :  that  such  errors  of  trans- 
lation as  exist,  such  liberties  with  the  text  involving  too  liberal  transla- 
tion into  English,  such  abbreviations  or  omissions,— pertain  to  but  very 
few  cases,  and  do  not  change  or  lessen  the  immorality  of  the  experi- 
ments themselves.  For  instance,  The  Medical  Press  condemned  Neisser 
and  that  condemnation  was  omitted  in  the  pamphlet.  This  was  indeed, 
a  wrong  done  to  the  periodical;  but  how  does  the  omission  lessen  Neis- 
ser's  guilt?  In  the  report  of  Menge's  experiments,  Dr.  Keen  tells  us 
that  "four  columns  of  text  in  the  original  intervene  between  the  first 
and  second  paragraphs,"  as  quoted  in  Human  Vivisection.  What  of  it? 
Is  Menge's  infamous  experimentation  upon  new-born  babes  made  less 
by  the  fact?  The  translation  of  the  report  of  Schreiber's  experiments 
was  far  too  free.  Yes;  but  Schreiber's  experiments  were  precisely  as 
stated  in  every  important  particular;  we  give  reference  to  the  original 
text  herewith.11  The  object  of  Kroenig's  experiments, — Dr.  Keen  says, — 
is  not  accurately  set  forth.  The  Kroenig  experiments  were  so  unspeaka- 
bly disgusting  that  any  paraphrase  possible  in  the  English  language  that 
can  in  some  measure  hide  their  vileness  is  but  a  debt  due  to  common 
decency. 

4.  In  one  point  only  has  Dr.  Keen  been  able  to  indicate  a  serious  error 
in  the  pamphlet  criticised.  This  mistake  concerns  certain  experiments 
made  by  Dr.  Sanarelli  upon  hospital  patients  under  his  care,  by  inoculat- 
ing them  with  the  poison  of  yellow  fever.  At  the  end  of  a  long  list 
of  symptoms  produced  by  the  poison  in  the  unfortunate  victims,  Dr. 
Sanarelli  appends  the  Latin  word  in  italics — "collapsus"  followed  by 
the  word  "infine."*  Impressed  with  its  emphasis  and  the  conjunction  of 
the  two  words,  the  translator,  doubtless  innocently  enough,  wrote  "final 
collapse,"  where  the  adjective  should  have  been  omitted.  It  was  a  serious 
mistake,  for  it  led  to  a  statement  by  the  writer  who  first  gave  it  publicity 
that  is  was    "understood  that  some,  if  not  all  of  the  persons  inoculated 

*  We  give  the  exact  words  of  Dr.  Sanarelli  at  the  foot  of  page  38. 


Rci'iczi'  of  Dr.  Keen's  Letter.  29 

died  of  the  disease."  The  translation  of  this  sentence,  and  the  very- 
natural  deduction  to  which  it  led,  were  both  given  to  the  public  over 
his  own  name  by  Mr.  Rene  Bache  of  Washington,  D.  C,  a  well-known 
writer  on  scientific  subjects,  who  has  no  connection  whatever  with  the 
American  Humane  Association.12  Whoever  made  this  translation,  he 
included  one  sentence,  actually  in  the  original  Italian,  but  which  was 
carefully  omitted — or  "garbled"- — in  every  other  translation  into  English 
which  we  have  been  able  to  find  in  the  medical  press.  Reference  will 
be  made  again  to  this  very  singular  circumstance. 

5.  Dr.  Keen's  imputation  of  "garbled  quotation"  is  wholly  without 
pertinency  except  on  the  ground  that  the  parts  omitted  in  the  pamph- 
let, were  essential  to  any  fair  judgment  of  the  morality  of  the  experi- 
menter's acts.  On  this  question,  we  join  issue  with  him  without  hesi- 
tation. The  accounts  of  certain  human  vivisections  contained  in  the 
pamphlet,  he  calls  "garbled,"  whenever  the  result  of  the  experiment — 
so  far  as  the  victim  is  concerned — was  not  stated;  and  he  refers  to 
this  so  often,  as  to  imply  that  he  regards  non-injury  to  the  victims  a 
substantial  excuse  for  the  deeds.  Sanarelli  with  his  yellow  fever  venom 
("veleno")  makes  cruel  tests  upon  five  hospital  patients  entrusted  to  his 
professional  care ;  "none  of  them  died,"  protests  Dr.  Keen.  Fitch  of 
San  Francisco,  while  at  Hawaii,  inoculates  some  twenty  little  girls  with 
the  virus  of  foulest  disease,  under  circumstances  which  if  Dr.  W.  W. 
Keen  dared  to  print  and  publicly  to  sanction  and  repeat  in  Philadelphia 
to-day,  it  would  cause  him  to  be  hissed  and  hooted  from  the  city  in 
which  he  lives.  "None  of  those  inoculated  took  the  disease,"  he  pleads 
in  apparent  extenuation  of  the  vileness  which  he  dared  not  otherwise 
endorse.  Wentworth  makes  experiments  upon  sick  and  dying  children 
in  an  "Infants'  Hospital ;"  and  Dr.  Keen  hastens  to  mitigate  criticism 
by  asserting  that  the  death  of  the  little  ones  was  due  to  other  causes — 
all  unconscious  that  his  excuse  is  one  of  the  most  infamous  cir- 
cumstances of  the  deed ;  it  was  dying  children  in  the  last  throes  of 
death  that  were  sometimes  used  as  "material"  for  these  human  vivisec- 
tions. Berkley  makes  experiments  which  he  calls  "poisoning  with 
preparations  of  the  thyroid  gland ;"  it  was,  he  says,  "directly  for  the 
purpose  of  ascertaining  the  toxicity"  (or  poisonous  qualities)  "of  one 
of  the  best  known  varieties  of  the  thyroid  gland,  that  the  following 
series  of  experiments  were  undertaken ;"  they  were  made  upon  "eight 
patients  of  the  City  asylum;"  two  patients  became  "frenzied"  and  of 
these,  one  died ;  and  Dr.  Keen  is  loud  in  proclaiming  that  she  died  of 
"galloping  consumption," — as  if  now  and  by  this  excuse  he  had  cleared 
the  experimenter  from  every  stain  of  guilt !  Schreiber  experiments 
upon  forty  new-born  babes ;  and  Dr.  Keen  is  quick  to  explain,  that — 
according  to  the  experimenter, — no  evil  results  were  experienced  by  the 
victims.  Neisser  makes  a  series  of  experiments  involving  inoculations  of 
so  infernal  a  character  that  their  publication  has  stirred  all  Germany 
into  indignant  protest;  the  London  Times  recently  reports  that  Neisser 
has  been  made  the  subject  of  judicial  investigation,  and  that  for  merely 
giving  publicity  to  his  diabolical  work  he  has  been  officially  censured  and' 


30  The  Hainan   Vivisection  Controversy. 

heavily  fined.13  Does  Dr.  Keen  find  occasion  to  add  his  censure?  Does 
he  condemn  Neisser  in  any  way?  Does  he  utter  a  single  word  of 
reprobation?  On  the  contrary  he  comes  forward  to  assail  those  who 
had  brought  his  wickedness  to  light  in  this  country,  and  to  assure  us — 
on  the  zvord  of  Neisser! — that  of  the  girl  victims  (one  was  but  ten  years 
old),  some  were  of  irregular  life!  Now  what  have  all  these  excuses  to 
do  with  the  essential  wickedness  of  the  experiments,  or  the  utter  con- 
demnation their  perpetrators  deserve?  Does  Dr.  Keen  believe  for  one 
moment  that  if  he  should  repeat  the  experiments  of  Fitch  or  Neisser  by 
inoculating  Philadelphia  children  with  the  foulest  of  diseases,  he  could 
escape  universal  execration  in  that  city  by  placing  his  hand  upon  his 
heart  and  affirming — on  his  word  of  honor, — that  by  good  fortune  they 
escaped  injury,  or  else  that  some  of  the  girl-victims  were  of  doubtful 
reputation?  He  knows  better.  He  knows  that  he  dare  not  repeat  these 
experiments,  and  ever  hope  for  pardon  from  the  American  people  by 
the  promulgation  of  such  a  plea.  Then  why  does  he  bring  it  up?  Why 
does  he  attack  the  American  Humane  Association  for  omitted  details 
regarding  these  experiments,  when  such  omissions  could  not  in  the  slight- 
est degree  mitigate  the  vileness  of  the  crimes? 

No,  human  vivisection  is  not  a  myth.  At  the  very  time  when  Dr. 
Keen  was  writing  a  letter  that  should  create  doubt  concerning  the  reality 
of  the  practice,  the  Prussian  Government,  moved  by  popular  indignation, 
was  promulgating  an  official  order  against  the  crime ! 

The  London  Times  of  Jan.  5,  1901,  prints  the  following  telegram  from 
its  Special  Correspondent  in  Berlin : 

"In  obvious  connexion  with  this  (Neisser)  case,  is  an  order  which  has  just  been 
promulgated  by  the  Prussian  Minister  of  Public  Instruction.     The  order  says  : 

'  I  hereby  call  the  attention  of  those  who  have  the  management  of  clinical  and 
Polyclinical  Hospitals  and  similar  institutions  to  the  fact  that  medical  operations  for 
any  purpose  save  those  of  the  diagnosis,  cure  and  prevention  of  disease  are  forbidden , 
even  when  otherwise  permissible  from  the  legal  and  moral  point  of  view, — (1)  in  the 
case  of  a  person  who  is  a  minor,  or  (who)  for  other  reasons  has  not  given  permission 
for  the  operation  :  (2)  in  cases  where  the  permission  has  not  been  preceded  by  a  proper 
statement  of  the  injurious  consequences  which  might  possibly  result  from  the  opera- 
tion. 

I  likewise  order  that  operations  of  this  nature  shall  be  undertaken  only  by  a  Direc- 
tor of  the  Institution  himself  or  by  his  special  authorization.  Whenever  such  an 
operation  is  performed,  the  register  of  the  case  must  contain  a  statement  that  the 
above  conditions  have  been  fulfilled  and  must  also  give  a  detailed  account  of  the  cir- 
cumstances. The  existing  regulations  affecting  medical  operations  for  the  purposes 
of  diagnosis,  cure  or  prevention  of  disease  are  not  affected  by  these  instructions.'  " 

We  commend  this  official  decree  to  the  careful  consideration  not 
only  of  Dr.  Keen,  but  also  of  Dr.  William  Osier,  the  physician-in-chief 
to  the  Johns  Hopkins  Hospital  in  Baltimore,  who  informed  the  Senate 
committee  that  a  law  against  experiments  upon  human  beings  would  be 
"a  piece  of  unnecessary  legislation  !"  " 

For  ourselves,  we  regard  as  utterly  valueless  all  statements  concern- 
ing the  fate  of  the  victims  of  human  vivisection  which  rest  upon  the 


Review  of  Dr.  Keen's  Letter.  31 

unsupported  word  of  the  experimenter  himself.  Dr.  Keen  tells  us,  for 
instance,  that  none  of  the  patients  experimented  upon  by  Dr.  X.  died 
as  a  result  of  the  experiments,  but  from  other  causes.  Well,  how  do 
yon  know?  From  the  evidence.  Whose  evidence?  The  word  of  Dr. 
X.!  Is  he  then,  likely  to  confess  the  truth  whenever  that  truth  would 
make  him  liable  to  a  criminal  investigation?  When  an  insane  patient  is 
choked  or  kicked  to  death  by  his  "nurses,"  in  some  lunatic  asylum 
or  hospital,  does  any  one  expect  them  to  come  forward  and  tell  how 
the  "unavoidable  accident"  really  occurred?  Will  not  the  bruises  be 
ascribed  to  "a  fall,"  and  the  broken  bones  to  "a  peculiar  osseous 
friability"?  And  when  a  man  sinks  to  the  moral  condition  of  an 
experimenter  upon  human  flesh  and  blood,  upon  little  children  confided 
to  his  care  by  love  and  solicitude,  his  report  on  the  after-condition  of 
his  victims  may  have  some  special  and  peculiar  value  in  the  eyes  of 
Dr.  Keen,  but  we  can  assure  him,  it  possesses  very  little  for  the  world 
at  large.  We  believe  that  experimenters  like  these  "count  the  hits  and 
not  the  misses,"  as  Lord  Bacon  says;  and  that  whenever  there  is  good 
reason  to  fear  consequences,  the  silence  of  the  grave  hides  forever  their 
crimes.  We  never  know,  for  a  certainty,  the  result  of  a  human  vivi- 
section, when  an  adverse  report  can  only  be  made  by  the  men  guilty  of 
the  deed.  Even  when  the  victims  actually  and  in  truth  escape  the  dan- 
gers to  which  they  were  subjected. —  (we  repeat  it  emphatically  for  Dr. 
Keen's  elementary  instruction  in  morals), — such  result  does  not  in  the 
slightest  degree  mitigate  the  essential  wickedness  of  the  experiment, 
or  lessen  the  criminality  of  that  physician  or  surgeon  who  can  stoop  to 
the  commission  of  such  infamous  acts. 


III. 

Has  Human  Vivisection  been  Palliated  by  Suggestion  of 
Conclusions  Contrary  to   Fact  ? 

We  come  at  last  to  the  most  serious  criticism  we  have  to  make  of 
Dr.  Keen's  letter.  In  defense  of  such  experimentation  or  in  palliation 
of  its  atrocity,  has  Dr.  Keen  repeatedly  suggested  as  true,  conclusions 
which  were  not  only  untrue,  but  the  untruth  of  which, — if  he  had 
stopped  to  reflect, — he  must  assuredly  have  known  ?  Consciously  or 
unconsciously,  has  he  not  again  and  again  sacrificed  veracity  in  anxiety 
to  clear  his  friends?  We  are  not  imputing  to  him  the  dishonor  of 
deliberate  falsehood.  Should  he  declare  with  uplifted  hands  that 
every  word  he  has  ever  written  on  points  hereafter  criticised  is  in 
some  sense  true,  we  shall  not  argue  the  matter.  We  believe,  however, 
that  we  can  indicate  so  many  instances  of  false  suggestion,  as  to  prove — 
from  a  scientific  point  of  view — the  unreliability  of  everything  he  has 
written  regarding  human  vivisection.  Some  of  these  instances,  alone 
by  themselves,  might  possibly  be  regarded  as  of  slight  significance. 
Taken  collectively,  they  are  so  many  as  to  denote  an  inherent  tendency 
to  inaccuracy  in  his  mental  operations,  which  cannot  be  gainsaid,  how- 


32  The  Human  Vivisection  Controversy. 

ever  it  may  be  explained.  We  shall  refer  to  more  than  a  dozen  instances 
of  this    "suggestion  of  the  false." 

i.  The  first  instance  is  seen  in  the  very  statement  he  made  before 
the  Senate  committee.  "Of  experiments  narrated  in  that  pamphlet," 
said  Dr.  Keen,  "I  have  looked  up  every  one  I  could.  Only  two  are 
alleged  to  have  been  done  in  America."  Only  "two  experiments?" 
Why,  Dr.  Wentworth  made  some  forty-five  experiments  on  infants  and 
children,  some  of  them  in  a  dying  condition ;  Dr.  Berkley  tells  us  that 
he  used  "eight  human  subjects;"  we  call  that  fifty- three  experiments, 
not  "two."  He  affects  indignation  at  "the  imputation  of  untruthful- 
ness," and  asks  President  Brown  to  point  out  "a  third  instance  of 
experiments  done  in  America,"  and  mentioned  in  the  pamphlet.  We 
point  to  fifty  more  experiments  mentioned  in  the  pamphlet  than  those  he 
asks  for;  are  we  not  justified  in  saying  that  the  impression  conveyed  by 
his  language  is  contrary  to  facts?* 

The  truth  is,  the  American  Humane  Association  did  not  desire  to 
make  its  exposure  of  the  evil  more  complete  than  would  suffice  to 
prove  its  existence,  and  tend  to  secure  condemnation  and  reform.  It 
never  dreamed  that  any  reputable  medical  man  would  attempt  to  mini- 
mize such  facts,  or  strive  to  convey  an  impression  of  his  personal 
ignorance  regarding  so  notorious  an  evil.  Why,  if  the  American  Humane 
Association  were  merely  to  quote  the  accounts  of  certain  experiments 
made  upon  charity  patients  in  American  hospitals,  and  on  record  in 
medical  literature,  it  would  give  publicity  to  research,  some  of  which, 
in  deliberate  diabolism  of  invention,  equal  the  vilest  human  vivisections 
of  Europe!     Does  Dr.  Keen  have  the  slightest  doubt  of  this  assertion? 

As  an  illustration  of  the  reality  of  Dr.  Keen's  ignorance  concerning 
experiments  of  this  kind,  let  us  cite  here  a  single  fact.  At  the  Fifty-first 
annual  meeting  of  the  American  Medical  Association,  held  at  Atlantic 
City,  N.  J.,  in  June,  1900,  a  Dr.  Bernheim,  of  Philadelphia,  presented  to 
one  of  the  Sections  an  account  of  some  twelve  experiments  he  had  made 
upon  human  beings, — six  upon  a  mulatto  and  six  on  a  "woman 
patient."  These  researches  were  not  of  the  worst  character;  but  still 
they  were  expressions  of  tendency  toward  that  disregard  of  human 
rights  which  underlies  all  such  experiments  on  the  ignorant  and  poor.15 
Who  was  president  of  the  American  Medical  Association  at  this  time? 
Dr.  William  W.  Keen. 

2.  Another  false  suggestion  is  his  use  of  the  word  "alleged ;"  certain 
human  vivisections  are,  he  tells  us,  "alleged  to  have  been  done."  Why 
did  he  use  a  word  that  implies  uncertainty  where  no  possible  doubt  really 
existed  in  his  mind?  We  do  not  say  the  sun  is  "alleged"  to  shine;  an 
allegation,   says   Dr.   Murray,   is    "an  assertion  without   proof,   a  mere 

*  The  Journal  of  the  American  Medical  Association,  May  4,  1901,  in  defending  Dr. 
Keen's  statement  that  "  only  two"  experiments  are*  alleged  to  have  been  made  in 
America,  declares  that  "it  made  no  difference  whether  the  cases  were  one  or  five 
hundred."  It  would  thus  appear  that  500  human  beings  may  be  used  in  what  one 
may  describe  as  "a  single  experiment  !  "     This  admission  is  worth  remembering. 


Review  of  Dr.  Keen's  Letter.  33 

assertion."  Now  Dr.  Keen  could  not  have  had  the  slightest  doubt 
of  the  Wentworth-Berkley  experiments,  for  he  had  read  the  original 
accounts  in  the  medical  journals  containing  them.  To  speak  of  their 
occurrence  as  "alleged"  could  only  suggest  a  doubt  where  none  could 
exist. 

3.  In  his  letter  to  the  President  of  the  American  Humane  Association, 
Dr.  Keen  says :  "You  depend  for  the  accuracy  of  your  statements  upon 
newspapers  as  follows:"  and  he  prints  a  long  list  of  journals  to  many 
of  which  merely  passing  reference  had  been  made, — entirely  suppressing 
all  mention  of  the  medical  books  or  journals  upon  whose  evidence  the 
compilers  of  Humane  Vivisection  relied.  His  treatment  of  the  "cancer- 
grafting  scandal"  upon  which  we  have  commented  at  length,  is  a  case 
in  point.  Did  not  Dr.  Keen  know  that, — with  one  or  two  possible  excep- 
tions,— newspapers  were  not  the  basis  upon  which  the  charges  of 
such  experimentation  depended?  Dr.  Keen  certainly  cannot  be 
ignorant  of  what  is  to  be  found  in  medical  and  surgical  literature.  In 
a  single  medical  work,  written  and  published  in  Dr.  Keen's  own  city, 
reference  is  made  to  scores  of  such  experiments.  Was  it  fair  dealing 
with  the  Medical  profession  or  with  the  general  public  to  give  the 
impression  that  the  proofs  of  the  practice  of  experimentation  upon  human 
beings,  as  given  in  Human  Vivisection,  rested  chiefly  upon  newspaper 
reports  ? 

4.  Upon  a  small  pamphlet,  or  tract,  (printed,  Dr.  Keen  tells  us  in 
Washington,  D.  C.)  he  expends  a  certain  measure  of  criticism.  Never 
having  seen  it,  we  do  not  know  whether  his  imputations  concerning  it 
are  well-founded  or  not.  But  whatever  its  defects,  what  have  they  to 
do  with  the  publication  of  the  American  Humane  Association?  Nothing 
whatever.  And  yet  Dr.  Keen  joins  both  pamphlets  in  one  criticism, — 
even  numbering  his  paragraphs  as  if  both  publications  proceeded  from 
the  same  source !  Surely,  he  knew  better.  Why  was  it  done  ?  Was  it 
for  any  other  reason  than  to  lengthen  out  his  letter,  and  somehow  to 
give  to  the  public  an  idea  of  responsibility  for  errors  where  he  knew 
none  to  exist?  Was  this  honest?  Can  we  call  it  anything  but  "sug- 
gestion of  the  false?" 

5.  Still  another  instance  is  found  in  Dr.  Keen's  enumeration  of  his 
"evidences."  After  giving  names  of  fourteen  newspapers  and  journals, 
he  remarks :  "I  now  add  six  other  'vague  and  indefinite  references'  not 
to  newspapers;"  and  he  begins  by  referring  to  Tertullian  (upon  which 
we  have  already  commented)  numbering  this  paragraph  "15,"  and  so  on 
up  to  "20."  His  intention  is  apparent ;  he  desires  his  readers  to  believe 
that  he  has  named  fourteen  instances  of  "vague  and  indefinite"  authori- 
ties,— and  that  he  then  added  "six  other  vague  and  indefinite  references" 
making  twenty  in  all.  Hardly  one  reader  in  ten  would  perceive  that 
this  conclusion  was  wholly  false.  He  has  not  named  14  "vague  and 
indefinite"  references,  and  he  does  not  add  "six  more."  Of  the  four- 
teen journals  referred  to,  every  one  conveying  a  statement  of  fact — save 
one, — had  its  name  and  date  of  publication  plainly  given ;  we  read  them 
in  Dr.  Keen's  own  list;    one  for  example  was  the  London  Times  of  June' 


34  The  Human  Vivisection  Controversy. 

27,  1891.  To  call  such  references  "vague  and  indefinite"  is  to  state  what 
is  absurdly  untrue.  Of  the  "six  other  vague  and  indefinite  references," 
which  Dr.  Keen  then  claims  to  add  to  his  list,  two  were  taken  from 
the  Washington  publication  which  Dr.  Keen  knew  perfectly  well  had 
nothing  to  do  with  the  pamphlet  he  was  pretending  to  review.  What 
kind  of  principles  are  they  which  sanction  such  chicanery?  If  done  by 
some  "newspaper  writer," — for  whom  he  has  so  profound  a  contempt, — 
would  Dr.  Keen  call  it  anything  but  downright  literary  dishonesty? 

6.  Referring  to  Dr.  Berkley's  well-known  experiments  on  insane 
patients,  Dr.  Keen  approaches  as  nearly  to  positive  approval  of  them 
as  language  could  well  imply.     One  passage  in  his  letter  is  as  follows : 

"  Moreover,  the  pamphlet  states,  that  'there  is  no  intimation  that  the  administra- 
tion of  the  poisonous  substance  was  given  for  any  beneficial  purpose  to  the  patients, 
for  he  took  care  to  select  patients  that  were  probably  incurable.'  On  the  contrary, 
Berkley's  original  paper  expressly  states  that  instead  of  being  incurable,  one  (Case 
No.  1)  was  cured,  and  another  (No.  3)  was  improved."     (Italics  ours.) 

Did  Berkley  select  patients  that  were  probably  incurable f  Dr.  Keen 
says,  "on  the  contrary." — suggesting  that  Berkley  did  nothing  of  the 
kind.     Let  us  see  just  what  Berkley  himself  said  in  his  original  article.16 

"The  first  part  of  the  investigation  was  made  upon  eight  patients  at  the  City 
Asylum,  who,  with  one  exception  (No.  1)  had  either  passed,  or  were  about  to  pass, 
the  limit  of  the  time  in  -which  the  recovery  could  be  confidently  expected."  (Italics 
ours. ) 

If  language  like  this  means  anything,  it  means  that  the  patients  "with 
one  exception"  were  not  likely  to  recover.  Does  Dr.  Keen's  "on  the 
contrary"    suggest  this? 

7.  Dr.  Keen  asserts  that  "as  a  result  of  the  administration  of  the 
thyroid  tablets  to  these  eight  patients,  .  .  .  two  of  these  alleged 
'incurables'  were  cured — 25  per  cent." 

This  is  a  suggestion  of  false  conclusions  of  the  most  palpable  kind.  In 
his  original  paper,  Berkley  made  no  pretense  of  "curing"  Case  No.  3. 
He  states  that  this  patient  at  the  outset  was  "good  tempered,"  and 
weighed  "at  beginning  of  the  thyroid  administration  125  pounds."  At 
the  end  of  his  first  week  as  a  subject  of  Dr.  Berkley's  experimentation 
he  "became  quite  irritable  and  impatient."  Further  details  we  quote  in 
Dr.  Berkley's  own  words : 

"  By  the  fifteenth  day,  he  was  so  quarrelsome  that  it  became  necessary  to  restrain 
him.  During  these  fifteen  days  he  lost  five  pounds  and  there  was  considerable  tachy- 
cardia and  sweating.  The  myxoedematous  symptoms  were  not  so  pronounced  as  in 
some  of  the  other  cases.  The  administration  of  the  extract  being  noiv  discontinued, 
he  regained  weight,  became  more  quiet,  and  after  the  lapse  of  several  weeks  he  was 
sent  to  his  friends  somewhat  improved."     (Italics  ours. ) 

In  plain  speech,  his  course  during  this  experiment  was  steadily  down- 
.ward  until   the   drug  was   discontinued,   and  then,   only  after  the  lapse 


Review  of  Dr.  Keen's  Letter.  35 

of  several  weeks,  was  he  "somewhat  improved !"  We  should  not  be 
surprised  to  learn  of  his  complete  recovery,  if  he  remained  long  enough 
at  home.  When  Dr.  Keen  included  this  case  as  one  that  was  cured 
"as  a  result  of  the  administration  of  the  thyroid  tablets"  did  he  tell 
the  truth? 

This-  is  the  way  Dr.  Berkley  himself  speaks  of  these  "cures,"  and 
the    "treatment"    generally : 

"  The  above  experiment  upon  eight  human  subjects  points  out  conclusively  that  the 
administration  of  even  the  very  best  and  purest  of  the  commercial  dessicated  thyroid 
tablets  is  not  unattended  by  danger  to  the  health  and  life  of  the  patient."  (Italics 
ours.) 

We  commend  this  wise  conclusion  to  the  sober  consideration  of  Dr. 
Keen,  who  tells  us  that  in  certain  cases,  he  has  given  such  tablets  "for 
weeks  together  in  larger  doses  than  Dr.  Berkley  used." 

8.  Still  another  instance  may  be  found  in  the  Addendum  to  Dr.  Keen's 
letter,  wherein  he  compares  the  case  of  a  cretin  child,  treated  by  the 
thyroid  extract  in  a  perfectly  proper  way,  with  Berkley's  experiments 
upon  the  insane.  Dr.  Keen  knows  quite  well  that  the  two  cases  are 
entirely  distinct;  the  purpose  of  one  was  the  cure  of  the  patient;  the 
admitted  purposes  of  the  other  was  to  test  the  toxicity  of  a  drug;  but 
he  couples  them  together  as  if  they  were  alike  in  all  respects.  He  says 
distinctly :  "If  Dr.  Berkley's  use  of  the  thyroid  extract,  which  cured 
two  out  of  eight  patients  zvas  an  experiment,  and  its  administration  by 
Dr.  Nicholson  also  was  an  experiment,  the  more  of  such  happy  'experi- 
ments'  we  could  have  the  better."     (Italics  ours.) 

Here,  within  the  compass  of  less  than  forty  words  we  have  three 
examples  of — what?  Let  the  reader  decide.  Dr.  Keen  here  intimates 
that  the  perfectly  proper  use  of  the  thyroid  extract  by  Dr.  Nicholson  has 
been  called  an  "experiment,"  which  is  untrue ;  he  again  asserts  the 
"cure"  of  two  of  Berkley's  patients  as  the  direct  result  of  the  drug, 
and  he  ridicules  the  idea  that  any  experimentation  took  place.  We  have 
tested  the  veracity  of  one  suggestion ;  let  us  see  what  degree  of  truth 
is  in  another. 

Was  Berkley's  administration  of  the  thyroid  extract  in  the  nature  of 
regular  medical  treatment,  or  was  it  experimental  in  character,  having 
for  its  "purpose,"  the  testing  of  the  "toxicity"  of  a  dangerous  drug? 
The  answer  to  this  inquiry  is  not  to  be  gained  by  quotations  from 
Berkley's  recent  defense,  in  "Life"  of  last  December,  but  by  noting 
his  expression  of  "purpose"  in  his  original  article,  when  he  had  no 
expectation  of  any  adverse  criticism. 

In  the  first  paragraph  of  his  essay.  Dr.  Berkley  shows  his  scepticism 
regarding  the  drug  as  a  medicament.     He  says : 

"  The  favorable  side  of  the  administration  of  the  thyroid  extracts  is  shown  in  the 
very  numerous  articles  in  current  medical  literature  published  both  in  this  country  and 
in  Europe.  .  .  It  is  quite  safe  to  say  after  a  review  of  some  of  them  that  the  results 
would  have  been  as  brilliant  had  no  medicament  been  administered. 


36  The  Human  Vivisection  Controversy. 

It  is  nevertheless  true  that  the  extract,  ii'hen  administered  to  either  ?nan  or  the 
lower  animals,  will  occasion  very  grave  symptoms  of  a  toxemic  (poisonous)  nature  ;. 
symptoms  that  involve  the  cerebral,  the  vasomotor,  and  digestive  functions  ;  and  per- 
haps, also,  the  normal  action  of  those  ductless  glands  that  throw  into  the  circulation 
a  potent,  though  unknown,  substance  ;  and  when  this  administration  is  pushed  to 
even  a  moderate  degree,  death  is  almost  the  invariable  result.  ...  A  medica- 
ment having  these  qualities  cannot,  therefore,  be  administered  with  impunity  to  every 
sane  or  insane  patient  ;  and  it  was  therefore  directly  for  the  purpose  of  ascertaining 
the  toxicity  (poisonous  qualities)  of  one  of  the  best  known  varieties  of  the  thyroid  ex- 
tract that  the  following  series  0/  experiments  were  undertaken.  The  first  portion  of 
the  investigation  teas  made  upon  eight  patie?its  at  the  City  Asylum,  who,  with  one 
exception  (No.  1),  had  passed  or  were  about  to  pass  the  limit  of  time  in  which  a  re- 
covery could  be  confidently  expected."16     (Italics  ours.) 

"If  this  was  an  experiment !"  "The  more  of  such  happy  experiments 
the  better!"  We  wonder  how  many  patients  of  any  physician  in 
America  would  really  desire  this  sort  of  "happy  experiments"  to  be 
made  upon  themselves? 

9.  But  there  are  phases  of  defense  of  far  more  serious  import.  Take 
the  case  of  Schreiber's  victim,  as  related  in  the  pamphlet, — the  little  boy 
whose  mother  was  ill  with  consumption  but  who,  himself  was  apparently 
sound  and  healthy.  At  first  the  parents  refused  to  permit  their  child  to- 
be  inoculated  as  an  experiment — "anfangs  wolten  die  Eltern  die  injec- 
tion nicht  zulassen," — but  at  last, — after  what  persuasions  we  can  never 
know,  they  were  induced  to  grant  it  as  a  punishment  for  some  trifling 
offense,  and  it  produced  the  looked-for  reaction.  Concerning  this  experi- 
ment Dr.  Keen  has  a  good  word: 

"  I  do  not  know  what  could  have  been  more  fortunate  for  this  boy  than  the  recog- 
nition in  its  incipiency  of  a  disease  previously  unsuspected,  and  which,  recognized  thus 
early,  should  in  all  probability  be  cured  by  proper  treatment.  This  tuberculin  test  is 
constantly  employed  to  prevent  the  spread  of  tuberculosis  in  our  cattle.  In  our  chil- 
dren, it  enables  us  to  discover  the  same  disease  in  an  early,  curable  stage.  Shall  we 
care  for  our  cattle  better  than  our  children?  " 


As  an  example  of  the  art  of  false  suggestion,  this  paragraph  is  a 
masterpiece.  In  the  most  plausible  manner  possible  the  reader  is  invited 
to  believe  that  what  Schreiber  did  as  an  experiment  was  very  appropriate 
treatment ;  that  tuberculin,  as  a  test  for  incipient  consumption  is  as 
suitable  for  children  as  it  is  for  cattle;  that  it  is  so  regarded  and  so 
employed  by  the  medical  profession  in  their  general  practice;  that  to 
decline  using  it  to  discover  consumption  "in  an  early,  curable  stage," 
is  to  "care  for  our  cattle  better  than  our  children."  And  yet  every  one 
of  these  deductions  would  be  false.  Dr.  Keen  should  know  perfectly 
well,  that  phthisis,  however  early  discovered,  is  not  "in  all  probability," 
a  curable  ailment.  He  must  know  that  the  tuberculin  test,  so  often  used 
upon  apparently  sound  and  healthy  cattle,  is  not  sanctioned  to-day  by  the 
medical  profession  for  use  upon  apparently  sound  and  healthy  children. 
He  neglects  to  tell  us,  as  a  matter  of  no  account,  that  of  three  experi- 


Review  of  Dr.  Keen's  Letter.  37 

ments  made  by  Anders,  to  which  he  refers,  one  of  the  victims  died  six 
weeks  afterwards.  He  knows  that  experiments  like  those  of  Schreiber, 
made  upon  apparently  healthy  children  of  poor  consumptive  mothers,  he 
would  not  venture  to  repeat  upon  the  apparently  sound  and  healthy 
children  of  a  consumptive  mother  in  any  family  of  wealth  and  influence 
in  the  city  of  Philadelphia;  and  that  if  such  a  test  were  made  by  any- 
one, it  would  be — as  Schreiber  made  it — where  persuasion  counts,  and 
ignorance  veils  results.  And  yet  knowing  all  this,  he  puts  a  question 
implying  the  recognized  use  of  tuberculin  upon  children  who  seem  per- 
fectly sound  and  well : — "Shall  zve  care  for  our  cattle  better  than  for  our 
children  ?" 

10.  Regarding  Schreiber's  experiments  upon  40  new-born  babes  by 
injecting  tuberculin  in  increasing  doses,  Dr.  Keen  intimates  that  a  justi- 
fication existed  but  that  the  pamphlet  Humane  Vivisection  suppressed 
it.  "It  would  be  too  much  to  expect  your  Society  to  have  indicated  on 
what  grounds  Professor  Schreiber  was  led  to  the  employment  of  such 
large  doses,"  deftly  suggesting — without  any  positive  affirmation — that 
Schreiber  knew  in  advance  that  his  experiments  would  be  harmless. 
Now  Dr.  Keen  should  have  known  that  any  such  suggestion  was  with- 
out truth,  and  we  shall  prove  it  by  Schreiber  himself.  So  far  from  being 
confident  that  his  experiments  were  harmless,  Schreiber  after  beginning 
them  could  not  sleep  for  thinking  of  what  he  had  done,  and  its  possible 
consequences  to  these  new-born  babes.     He  says : 

"  Die  erste  Nacht  danach  habe  ich  fast  schlaflos  zugebracht ;  ich  sah  im  voraus  die 
armen  Kinder  schon  mit  hochrothen  Wangen  und  gewaltiger  Temperatursteigerng 
vor  mich  ;  ich  glaubte  sie  wimmern  zu  horen,  u.  s.  w.  von  allerdem  war  nichts."17 

"I  spent,"  he  says,  "an  almost  sleepless  night.  Before  me  I  seemed 
to  see  the  poor  babes  with  crimson  cheeks  and  violently-increasing  tem- 
perature; their  wailings  I  seemed  to  hear."  It  is  true  that, — taking 
Schreiber's  word  for  it, — these  forebodings  were  unrealized,  and  he  went 
on  to  repeat  the  inoculations  with  constantly  increasing  doses.  Dr. 
Keen  has  no  word  of  censure ;  apparently  he  would  have  us  infer  it  was 
all  right.  Would  he  be  willing  to  have  thus  experimented  upon  at  the 
hour  of  its  birth,  one  of  his  own  children?  Does  he  fancy  that  in  the 
sight  of  the  Creator,  a  hospital-babe  is  less  sacred  than  his  own  favored 
offspring?  Because  it  is  poor  and  friendless,  has  it  no  rights?  What 
we  wonder,  does  Dr.  Keen  think  would  have  been  the  judgment,  upon 
such  experiments,  of  One  whose  birthplace  was  only  a  manger,  and  who 
sometimes  had  not  where  to  lay  His  head? 

11.  What  seems  a  perverse  instinct  of  inveracity  will  sometimes  infect 
even  a  simple  statement  of  fact.  For  instance,  in  referring  to  Sanarelli's 
inoculations  of  hospital  patients  with  the  toxin  of  yellow  fever,  Dr.  Keen 
sees  a  chance  to  confuse  the  impression,  and  straightway  informs  his 
readers — as  if  it  were  of  the  utmost  importance, — that  the  pamphlet 
omitted  to  state  that 

"  Not  the  germs  of  the  disease,  but  the  carefully  filtered  and  sterilized  germ-free- 
fluid  was  used." 


38  The  Human  Vivisection  Controversy. 

Really?  Is  it  not  perfectly  evident  what  inference  Dr.  Keen  wishes 
here  to  suggest?  Could  any  reader  unfamiliar  with  the  subject  imagine 
that  this  "carefully-filtered  and  sterilized  germ-free  fluid"  was  as  a  mat- 
ter of  fact,  one  of  the  most  virulent  of  poisons?  Sanarelli  tells  us  that 
certain  experiments  on  animals  led  him  to  suspect  "the  existence  of  a 
very  active  specific  poison.  This  poison  is  obtained  by  simply  filtering 
the  broth-culture  of  bacillus  ictcroides,  24  days  old."  But  Dr.  Keen  tells 
us  it  is  not  only  "germ-free,"  but  "sterilised;"  why  is  that  done  ?  Because, 
Sanarelli  tells  us,  "if  cultures  sterilized  with  ether  are  employed,  the 
toxic  {poisoning)  power  is  much  more  active."is  How  very  thankful 
we  should  be  to  Dr.  Keen  for  his  little  contributions  to  popular  science ! 
How  great  is  the  art  that  can  pervert  the  judgment  by  the  statement  of 
a  fact ! 

12.  We  come  now  to  one  of  the  most  serious  charges  we  have  to  make. 
In  its  reference  to  Sanarelli's  experiments,  the  pamphlet  on  Human 
Vivisection  gave  as  its  authority  for  the  fact  that  such  experiments  had 
been  made,  the  British  Medical  Journal,  quoting  also  a  single  sentence 
from  the  New  England  Medical  Monthly.  Although  nothing  of  the 
kind  is  mentioned  in  the  pamphlet,  Dr.  Keen  will  have  it  that  "the 
extracts  marked  with  quotation  marks  are  from  the  New  England  Medi- 
cal Monthly";  and  having  evolved  this  notion  from  his  inner  conscious- 
ness, he  goes  on,  as  a  matter  of  course,  to  complain  that  in  certain 
respects  the  quoted  matter  does  not  verbally  agree  with  the  source  to 
which  he  has  thus  arbitrarily  assigned  it.  The  truth  is,  the  pamphlet 
nowhere  ascribes  the  quotation  he  criticises  to  the  New  England  Medical 
Monthly;  it  distinctly  prefixes  to  this  citation  the  words,  "Sanarelli  him- 
self says :"  and  the  translation  which  follows  was  from  other  sources. 
But  worse  is  to  come.     Dr.  Keen  says : 

"Moreover,  the  end  of  the  quotation  is  as  follows  : — '  I  have  seen  [the  symptoms  of 
yellow  fever]  unrolled  before  my  eyes,  thanks  to  the  potent  influence  of  the  yellow 
fever  poison  made  in  my  laboratory.'  This  entire  sentence  does  not  occur  either  in 
the  British  Medical  Journal  or  in  the  Neva  England  Medical  Monthly.  Whether  it  is 
quoted  from  some  other  source  not  indicated,  or  has  been  deliberately  added^  I  leave 
you     ...     to  explain." 

We  propose  to  speak  with  great  plainness  in  regard  to  this  paragraph, 
and  the  disgraceful  imputation  which  Dr.  Keen  has  therein  put  forth. 

In  the  first  place,  this  most  cold-blooded  sentence,  (referring  to  the 
"yellow  fever  poison  made  in  my  laboratory,"  and  the  long  list  of 
symptoms  "unrolled  before  my  eyes"),  which  Dr.  Keen  cannot  find  in 
the  medical  journals  named,  was  in  Sanarelli's  ozun  words.  We  give 
them  as  follows,  in  the  original  Italian,  transcribed  from  the  volume  to 
which  Dr.  Keen  himself  refers  us. 

*'  La  febbre,  le  congestioni,  le  emorragie,  il  vomito,  la  steatosi  del  fegato,  la  cefalal- 
gia,  la  rachialgia,  la  nefrite,  1' anuria,  1' uremia,  l'ittero,  il  delirio,  il  collapsus — infine, 
tutto  quel  complesso  di  elementi  sintomatici  ed  anatomici,  che  nel  loro  apprezamento 
combinato  constituiscono  la  base  indivisible  della  diagnosi  di  febbre  gialla,  not 
Vabbiamo  visto  svolgersi  ai  nostri  occhi, — dovnto  alia  potente  influenza  del  veleno 
amarilligeno  fabricato  ?ielle  nostri  culture  artificiali"  19 


Review  of  Dr.  Keen's  Letter.  39 

Here  are  the  words,  translated  and  given  to  the  world  by  the  pamphlet 
on  Human  Vivisection,  but  garbled  or  suppressed  by  every  medical 
publication  in  England  or  America,  which  has  attempted  to  quote  them ! 

But  we  have  not  finished  with  Dr.  Keen.  When  he  made  the  imputa- 
tion that,  because  these  words  were  not  in  certain  medical  journals,  they 
were  perhaps  "deliberately  added"  by  his  opponents,  zt'as  he  not  per- 
fectly aware  tliat  Sanarelli  himself  wrote  them?  Dr.  Keen  refers  us  to 
the  very  article  of  Sanarelli,  from  which  we  have  just  quoted  them;  he 
must  have  consulted  its  many  pages  most  carefully  in  order  to  ascertain 
the  fate  of  the  five  patients  upon  whom  the  experiments  were  made.  Di-d 
he  not  see  this  sentence  there?  With  the  open  volume  in  his  hands, 
the  original  article  before  his  eyes,  would  he  have  us  believe  that  he 
did  not  take  the  trouble  to  read  and  compare  the  only  quotation  from 
it  which  appears  in  the  pamphlet?  He  did  not  see  it?  Credat  Tudoeus 
Apella!  There  are  limitations  to  credidity.  Yet,  how  is  it  possible 
for  a  man  of  honor  to  make  a  disgraceful  imputation,  if  all  the  while 
he  knew  that  every  word  of  it  was  false?  When  men  are  willing  to 
defend  an  infamy,  then  indeed  there  is  danger  that  Dr.  Keen's  own 
words  may  significantly  and  aptly  apply, — "either  the  moral  sense  is 
blunted,  or  the  truth-telling  faculty  is  in  abeyance." 

We  have  by  no  means  touched  upon  all  that  is  worthy  of  criticism  in 
this  remarkable  letter.  It  is  sufficient  to  have  demonstrated  its  absolute 
unreliability,  its  unfairness,  its  frequent  paltering  with  truth.  We  are 
astonished  that  one  occupying  Dr.  Keen's  position  in  the  medical  pro- 
fession should  so  completely  fail  to  apprehend  the  intensity  of  protest 
and  indignation,  sure  one  day  to  be  evoked  regarding  all  who  either  prac- 
tice or  defend  these  atrocious  and  execrable  experiments  upon  their  fel- 
low-men. But  the  most  significant  point  of  all,  seems  to  us  that  entire 
absence  of  any  sympathy  for  the  victims  which  marks  his  communication. 
Everything  is  set  forth  that  could  help  in  any  way  to  turn  aside  criticism 
regarding  the  experimenters ;  could  not  Dr.  Keen  have  spared  also,  a  few 
words  of  pity  for  those  who  were  the  victims  of  so-called  "research?" 
He  is  inclined  to  make  merry  over  "scientific  assassination  that  did  not 
assassinate,  and  murder  of  those  who  were  so  disobliging  as  still  to 
live!"  It  strikes  us  that  this  tone  of  levity  is  decidedly  out  of  place. 
How  does  Dr.  Keen  know  that  the  victims  of  Sanarelli  are  still  alive? 
These  experiments  on  hospital  patients, — for  which  Dr.  Keen  has  here 
no  word  of  censure,- — may  not  have  lacked  in  the  end,  the  death  of  the 
victim  to  complete  the  tragedy.  Reading  Sanarelli's  own  account  of 
the  agonies  endured  by  his  victims,  the  "violenta  ccf otalgia,"  the  "dolori 
lancinanti,"  the  "tenismo  spasmodica,"  the  "vomito  incoercibile,"  the 
"viva  lamentazioni,"  we  are  quite  sure  that  the  Hospital  of  San  Sebas- 
tian was  no  place  for  mirth.  Nor  was  the  final  result  of  these  experi- 
ments so  innocent  as  their  apologist  would  have  us  believe.  If  a  son  of 
Dr.  Keen  were  thus  unconsciously  inoculated  with  "the  carefully  fil- 
tered and  sterilized  germ-free"  toxin  of  yellow  fever,  and  made  to 
suffer  day  after  day  all  the  torments  that  Sanarelli  has  so  vividly 
described :    and  if,  after  the  fever  had  somewhat  abated,  a  few  "explora- 


40  The  Human   Vivisection  Controversy. 

tive  punctures"  were  made  in  his  liver  and  kidneys, — "varie  punture 
csplorative  dal  fegato  e  dai  reni" — revealing  a  profound  fatty  degenera- 
tion of  the  one,  and  granular  degeneration  in  the  other,  we  are  inclined 
to  think  that  such  endowment  of  his  offspring  with  the  beginnings  of 
organic  disease  and  the  probabilities  of  shortened  life  would  be  regarded 
as  "scientific  assassination"  even  by  the  man  who  now  scoffs  at  the 
phrase.20  No,  Dr.  Keen,  by  the  side  of  these  wan  and  wasted  victims, 
there  is  no  occasion  for  your  sarcasm,  no  place  for  your  taunts.  Rather 
were  it  fitting  that  in  sackcloth  and  ashes,  in  profoundest  humiliation  and 
remorse,  you  laid  your  hands  on  your  lips  and  your  forehead  in  the  dust, 
remembering  with  shame  that  when  the  infamies  of  human  vivisectors 
were  unveiled,  and  men  called  in  the  name  of  Humanity  for  their  con- 
demnation, your  voice  was  silent,  and  your  lips  at  last  opened  only  for 
vague  and  glittering  generalities  of  reproof,  for  ridicule  of  charges  you 
should  have  known  were  substantially  true,  for  defense  even  of  the  vivi- 
sectors of  children,  in  palliation  of  the  vilest  crimes! 

And  yet  we  are  not  hopeless  of  the  future.  Centuries  ago,  to  one  who 
had  stood  by  dying  men,  "consenting  unto  their  death,"  there  came  at 
last  a  voice  that  he  could  not  but  heed,  and  a  light  that  "suddenly  shin- 
ing round  about  him,"  smote  him,  blinded,  to  the  earth.  Jew  of  Tarsus, 
persecutor  and  blasphemer,  chief  of  sinners, — how  came  to  thee  the 
grace  of  forgiveness  and  redemption?  "I  obtained  mercy,  because  I  did 
it  ignorantly  and  in  unbelief."  Perchance  then,  even  to  others  may 
yet  come  some  journey  to  Damascus,  the  light  of  rebuke  and  warning; 
the  blessing  of  penitence  and  expiation."1 


0  Divine  Justice!  Thou  that  tarrying  long,  yet  steepest  not 
nor  sluinberest,  Power  not  ourselves,  that  makes  for  Righteous- 
ness,— hear  our  prayer!  For  the  sake  of  infants  yet  unborn, 
for  whom  some  Mcnge  or  Schreiber  in  his  laboratory,  waits, — 
for  the  sake  of  innocent  girlhood  and  sacred  motherhood,  not 
yet  stretched  upon  the  altar  of  a  Godless  science, — for  the  sake 
of  our  poor,  outraged,  common  humanity, — grant  that  all  who 
practise  or  uphold  these  deeds  of  shame,  all  who  encourage  and 
defend  these  criminals,  may  soon  be  touched  with  sincerest  peni- 
tence, or  meet  some  just  and  redeeming .  retribution, — even 
though  it  come  with  keen,  aitd  bitter,  and  life-long  remorse. 


Notes.  41 


NOTES. 

1  //earing-  before  the  Senate  Committee  on  the  District  of  Columbia,  Feb.  21,  igoo, 
p.  30. 

2  Deutsche  med.  Wochenschrift,  November  29,  1894,  p.  907. 

3  Speeches  of  Henry  Lord  Brougham  upon  Questions  relating  to  Public  Rights. 
Duties  and  Interests.  Edin.  Vol.  I.,  p.  105.  There  are  various  readings  in  the 
original  report  of  this  speech  ;  some  phrases  run  as  given  here. 

4  Bulletin  de  T  Academie  de  Medicine,  1891,  p.  906.  "  Sur  les  greffes  et  inoculations 
de  cancer."  See  also  herein  a  report  of  the  protests  of  French  surgeons  regarding 
these  experiments. 

5  British  Medical  Journal,  July  25,  1891,  p.  214.     See  also  its  issue  of  Aug.  29,  1891, 

P-  495- 

6  Deutsche  med.  Wochenschri/t,  10  Nov.,  1887,  p.  987. 

7  British  Medical  Journal,  July  4,  1891.  See  also  Medical  Press,  (London)  Dec. 
5,  1888,  p.  583. 

H  The  Medical  Neivs,  New  York.  April  1,  1899.  After  referring  to  various  experi- 
ments upon  animals,  Dr.  Park  says  : 

"  There  is  also  a  celebrated  case  published  by  Cornil  in  1891,  of  a  woman  having  a 
large  tumor  of  the  breast  in  which  a  surgeon,  name  not  given  but  known,  inserted  a 
small  particle  of  the  growth  beneath  the  skin  of  the  breast  on  the  opposite  side,"  etc. 

There  should  be  no  mystery  about  the  principal  actor  in  what  Dr.  Park  justly  calls 
"a  celebrated  case;"  it  was  Dr.  Doyen  of  Rheims,  France.  In  regard  to  the  case, 
see  the  British  Medical  Journal  of  Aug.  29,  1891. 

9  Tertullian.  De  Anima.  Edinburgh  edition,  1S70  ;  Translated  by  Holmes.  Vol. 
II.,  pp.  430-431.  "  There  is  that  Herophilus,  the  well-known  surgeon,  or  (as  I  may 
rather  call  him)  butcher,  who  cut  up  no  end  of  persons  in  order  to  investigate  the 
secrets  of  Nature,  who  ruthlessly  handled  human  creatures  to  discover  their  form  and 
make." 

10  Ceniralblatt  Jilr  Baktei'iologie  und  Parasitenkunde.     Vol.  x.,  pp.  40-44. 

11  Deutsche  med.  Wochenschri/t,  1891,  Feb.  19;  Vol.  17,  p.  308. 

12  The  Boston  Trafiscript,  Sept.  24,  I897. 

13  London  Times,  Jan.  5,  1901.  These  Neisser  experiments  have  more  than  once 
occupied  the  attention  of  German  legislators.  The  London  Chronicle  of  March  7, 
1900  contained  a  Reuter's  telegram  from  Berlin  as  follows  : 

"  In  the  Lower  House  of  the  Prussian  Diet  to-day,  on  the  consideration  of  the  Esti- 
mates of  the  Ministry  of  Public  Worship,  Herr  von  Pappenheim  called  attention  to  the 
experiments  which  Professor  Neisser,  of  Breslau,  had  made  with  certain  serum  on 
children  and  adults,  /t  had  also  been  shoivn  that  similar  experiments  had  been  made 
by  other  universities. 

The  Government  Commissioner,  in  reply,  said  that  on  December  13th  last  the  Pub- 
lic Prosecutor  decided  to  act,  but  it  was  subsequently  found  that,  owing  to  the  lapse  of 
time  since  the  commission  of  the  offence,  it  had  fallen  under  the  statute  of  limitations. 
On  January  16th  the  Government  ordered  the  disciplinary  examination  of  Professor 
Neisser. 

The  Minister  of  Public  Worship,  in  reply,  stated  that  so  far  as  he  was  personally 
concerned  he  had  no  hesitation  in  declaring  that  he  extremely  regretted  what  had 
occurred.  He  would  give  every  guarantee  that  such  cases  should  not  recur,  and  that  a 
certain  supervision  should  be  exercised  to  that..effect." 

The  London  Times  of  Jan.  5,  1901  publishes  a  telegraphic  dispatch  "  from  our  own 
Correspondent  "  as  follows  : 

"The  Disciplinary  Court  for  officials  sentenced  Professor  Neisser  of  the  University 
of  Breslau  last  Saturday  to  receive  a  censure  and  to  pay  a  fine  of  300  marks  for  having 
published  an  account  of  certain  experiments  to  which  he  had  subjected  children  who 


42  The  Human   Vivisection  Controversy. 

were  patients  in  the  University  Hospital.  In  an  article  published  in  1899,  Professor 
Neisser  himself  related  that  in  1892  he  had  made  experiments  upon  children  with  the 
virus  of  syphilis,  and  he  gave  an  account  of  the  course  of  the  cases.  Neither  the 
parents  of  the  children  nor  the  little  patients  themselves  were  aware  of  what  was  being; 
done.  The  Disciplinary  Court  was  unable  to  inflict  a  penalty  for  the  experiments 
themselves,  as  the  right  to  prosecute  had  lapsed  through  time ;  but  it  punished  Profes- 
sor Neisser  for  the  account  which  he  had  published." 

14  Hearing  before  Senate  Committee,  Washington,  Feb.  21,  1900.  At  the  close  of 
Dr.  Osier's  speech  the  following  conversation  occurred  : 

Senator  Gallinger  :  ''Supposing  Dr.  Osier,  that  I  should  offer  a  bill  prevent- 
ing human  vivisection,  would  you  oppose  it  ?  " 

Dr.  Osler.     "  Yes,  sir;  as  a  piece  of  unnecessary  legislation.'''' 

15  Journal  of  'the  American  Medical  Association,  February  16,  1901,  p.  429.  In  the 
same  issue  of  this  periodical  is  an  account  of  certain  experiments  made  regarding  yel- 
low fever,  upon  men  who  were  hired  to  submit  to  the  investigations.     See  pp.  431, 

447,  461. 

18  Bulletin  of  Johns  Hopkins  Hospital,  July,  1897.  "  Poisoning  with  preparations 
of  the  Thyroid  Gland,"  by  Henry  J.  Berkley,  M.D. 

17  Deutsche  med.  Wochenschrift,  1891,  Feb.  19,  p.  309. 

18  British  Medical  Journal,  July  3,  1897. 

19  Annali  d'  Igiene  Sperimentale,  1897,  vol.  vii.,  p.  470.  This  garbling  of  Sana- 
relli's  words  was  probably  made  by  some  one  connected  with  the  British  Medical 
Journal,  for  the  first  appearance  of  the  mutilated  sentence  was  in  this  periodical,  July 
3,  1897.     It  read  thus  : 

"  The  fever,  the  congestions,     .     .     .     delirium,  collapse;  in  short,  all  that  complex 

of  symptomatic  and  anatomical  elements  which  in  their  combination,  constitute  the 
indivisible  basis  of  the  diagnosis  of  yellow  fever. " 

Any  educated  reader  must  see  at  once  that  this  sentence  is  imperfect  and  incomplete; 
where  is  the  verb  ?  Did  it  not  occur  to  Dr.  Keen,  that  only  as  printed  in  the  pamph- 
let Human  Vivisection,  could  the  sentence  be  said  to  be  grammatically  correct  ?  The 
reason  for  this  garbling  is  evident :  it  was  too  plain  a  confession  of  human  vivisection. 

20  Annali d*  Igiene  Sperimentale,  vol.  vii.,  pp.  444-445.  "  Pratico,  con  cannule 
sterilizzate,  varie  punture  esplorative  dal  fegato  e  dai  reni,  .  .  .  L'  esame  micro- 
scopico  del  succo  epatico,  .  .  .  dimostra  una  profonda  degenerazione  grassa  de 
tutti  le  cellule  epatiche,"  etc. 

-'  I  Timothy,  1,  13. 


Single  copies  of  this  pamphlet,  ten  cents. 
Per  dozen  copies,   seventy-five  cents. 
Sent,  postage  paid,  on  receipt  of  price. 

Address : 


SPECIAL   COMMITTEE, 

P.  O.  Box  2is, 

Providence,  R.  I. 


HISTORICAL 

COLLECTJON 


LIB. 


HUMANE    LITERATURE. 


The  American  Humane  Association  was  organized  in  1877,  for 
the  purpose  of  promoting  unity  and  concert  of  action  among  the 
American  societies,  having  for  their  object  the  prevention  of  Cruel ty 
to  children  and  animals.  For  nearly  twenty-four  years  it  has  endeav- 
ored to  carry  out  this  purpose,  principally  through  deliberative  con- 
ventions, held  annually  in  various  cities  throughout  the  Union,  and 
in  Canada.  At  a  late  meeting  of  the  Association  in  Washington, 
D.  C,  it  was  decided  somewhat  to  enlarge  its  field  of  activity,'  and  to 
make  the  Association  more  of  an  Educational  force  in  awakening 
public  sentiment  to  the  need  of  various  reforms. 

The  principal  methods  through  which  the  American  Humane 
Association  will  aim  to  accomplish  this  purpose  is  by  the  systematic 
distribution  of  Humane  Literature.  So  far  as  funds  permit,  it  pro- 
poses to  promulgate  the  ideals  of  humane  conduct  in  every  direction 
where  necessity  exists.  Among  the  subjects  regarding  which  it  would 
seek  more  thoroughly  to  arouse  public  sentiment  are  the  abuses 
connected  with  the  treatment  of  domestic  animals ;  the  transportation 
of  cattle ;  their  slaughter  for  food ;  the  extermination  of  birds  for  the 
demands  of  fashion;  the  abuses  of  vivisection  when  carried  on,  as 
now,  without  State  supervision  or  control;  the  cruelties  pertaining 
to  child-life,  and  above  all,  the  great  and  growing  abomination  of 
Human  Vivisection,  in  the  subjection  of  children  and  others  to  scientific 
experimentation. 

The  extent  to  which  this  work  can  be  carried  out  will  depend  upon 
the  assistance  received.  All  interested  are  urgently  solicited  to  con- 
tribute towards  this  object.  Every  dollar  so  contributed  will  be 
devoted  exclusively  to  the  publication  and  dissemination  of  Humane 
Literature.  Should  subscribers  desire  their  contributions  to  be  espe- 
cially devoted  to  any  one  of  the  above  lines  of  this  humanitarian  work, 
their  preferences  will  be  observed. 
Address : 

Francis  H.  Rowley,  D.D., 

Treas.    Humane    Literature    Committee, 
No.  80,  Mason  Terrace, 

Boston,  Mass. 


DUKE    MED,    CENTER    US. 
HISTORICAL    COLLECTION 


